2015 (11) TMI 1669 - AT - Central Excise

Request for adjournment - Clandestine removal - Held that - the Adjudicating Authority had not considered the evidences in proper manner - matter remanded to the Adjudicating authority to decide afresh on the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Remand of the matter due to non-appearance of Respondents and lack of contesting grounds of appeal

In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT AHMEDABAD, the issues involved include the non-appearance of the Respondents and the lack of contesting the grounds of appeal by the Revenue. The appeals are arising out of a common order and are taken up together for disposal. None appeared on behalf of the Respondents, and on perusal of the records, it was found that the learned Advocate on behalf of M/s Shivam Casting requested an adjournment, but there was no adjournment application by the other Respondents. The learned Authorised Representative on behalf of the Revenue highlighted that all these appeals are old ones from 2007 and that the matter was adjourned previously at the request of the Respondents. The demand was based on the ground of clandestine removal of goods, and the main contention was that the Adjudicating Authority had not properly considered the evidence.

The Tribunal noted the non-appearance of the Respondents and their failure to contest the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue on merit. Due to the difficulty in proceeding with the matter under these circumstances, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision on the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue. It was emphasized that the Adjudicating authority must provide a proper opportunity for a hearing before passing the order. Consequently, all the appeals were allowed by way of remand. The judgment was dictated and pronounced in court by the Judicial Member.