2013 (12) TMI 1472 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of Ttribunal s order - Whether the first respondent has violated principles of natural justice in not serving the notice of hearing in terms of Rule 18 of Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982 - Held that - Since the appellant has not made its appearance in 2015 (2) TMI 749 - CESTAT CHENNAI , the Tribunal has erroneously stated that it has considered the rival submissions. Therefore, it is quite clear that for giving sufficient opportunity to the appellant, the impugned Final Order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, is liable to be set aside and the matter is liable to be remitted to the file of the Appellate Tribunal. - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against Final Order, Violation of Natural Justice, Ex-parte Order, Limitation Period for Duty Demand

Violation of Natural Justice:
The appellant challenged the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) before the Appellate Tribunal, alleging a violation of natural justice. The substantial question of law raised was whether the first respondent had violated principles of natural justice by not serving the notice of hearing as per Rule 18 of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. The Court found that the appellant did not make an appearance before the Tribunal, leading to a lack of opportunity to present their case. Consequently, the Final Order was set aside, and the matter was remitted to the Appellate Tribunal for a fresh hearing to ensure the appellant's right to be heard.

Ex-parte Order:
Another issue raised was regarding the sustainability of the ex-parte Final Order passed by the first respondent without affording three mandatory hearings to the appellant as required by Section 33A of the Act. The Tribunal had decided the matter on merits despite the appellant's non-appearance. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on rival contentions, but since the appellant did not participate, the Final Order was deemed unsustainable. The Court held that the appellant should have been given a fair opportunity to present their case, and thus, set aside the Final Order and directed a fresh hearing.

Limitation Period for Duty Demand:
The Appellate Tribunal's decision not to consider the normal limitation period under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act for raising the duty demand was also challenged. The appellant had filed a Classification List in 1995 with reference to a show cause notice issued in 1997. The Tribunal's decision to not apply the normal limitation period was questioned. However, this issue was not extensively discussed in the judgment, and the Court primarily focused on the violation of natural justice and the ex-parte nature of the Final Order.

In conclusion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was allowed without costs, and the Final Order passed by the Tribunal was set aside. The matter was remitted to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing, emphasizing the importance of affording both parties a fair opportunity to present their case.