2005 (10) TMI 565 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Unsigned copy of the impugned order.

Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice:
The case involved appeals against an order confirming demands of duty and imposing penalties under the Central Excise Act. The appellants challenged the lower authorities' proceedings, primarily alleging a violation of natural justice. It was contended that the party was not provided with all relied-upon documents, despite claims by the original authority. Correspondence between the party and the Superintendent of Central Excise indicated that some documents were not supplied. Although opportunities for document inspection were given, they were not utilized fully. The appellants also raised concerns about non-relied upon documents not being returned. The ld. SDR argued that opportunities for document inspection were offered, and the parties did not avail themselves of these chances. Citing a judgment, it was highlighted that personal hearing is not mandatory in all cases. The Tribunal found that the appellants were not effectively given an opportunity to present their case before the adjudicating authority. The investigators relied on various documents while recording statements but failed to provide copies to the appellants, denying them a fair chance to rebut the allegations.

Issue 2: Unsigned copy of the impugned order:
Another objection raised was regarding the appellants receiving an unsigned copy of the impugned order, attested by a Superintendent of Central Excise. The ld. SDR contested this objection, stating that unless it is proven that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not maintain a signed order in the original file, the objection could not be sustained. A precedent was cited where it was observed that documents issued to the affected party should ideally bear the signature of the officer concerned. The Tribunal decided not to delve further into this matter and instead set aside the orders of the lower authorities, remanding the case to the original authority for fresh adjudication in compliance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand, instructing the original authority to pass fresh adjudication orders after providing the parties with a reasonable opportunity to obtain all relied-upon documents and ensuring the return of non-relied upon documents. The appellants were to be allowed to inspect all documents not previously supplied and be heard personally. It was emphasized that the adjudicating authority should conduct proceedings within the territorial jurisdiction and ensure that orders of adjudication bear the authority's signature.