2011 (9) TMI 1164 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the order passed by the Tribunal solely based on a letter from the advocate, without the appellant's application or hearing, is sustainable?
2. Whether the Tribunal's order, ignoring the appellant's defense regarding excess inputs in the manufacturing process, is sustainable?

Analysis:
1. The case involved a physical stock taking by Central Excise officers at the appellant's premises, leading to a show cause notice alleging shortages in finished goods and raw materials. The appellant's reply was deemed unsatisfactory, resulting in a confirmation of duty demand, penalties, fines, and confiscation of materials by the adjudicating authority.

2. The appellant's appeal to the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading to a further appeal to CESTAT. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel submitted a letter requesting the Tribunal to decide on the merits independently. Despite no appearance from the appellant on the hearing date, the Tribunal proceeded and dismissed the appeal. The appellant argued that they did not instruct their counsel to forego arguing the case, causing prejudice due to lack of representation.

3. The appellant contended that their defense, explaining the alleged deficiencies in finished goods, was not adequately considered by the authorities. The High Court acknowledged the appellant's arguable case and the prejudice caused by the absence of counsel, emphasizing that litigants should not suffer due to counsel errors. The Court decided to set aside the Tribunal's order and remand the case for a fresh decision, granting the appellant an opportunity to present their case before the Tribunal for justice to be served.

4. The High Court, considering the circumstances, deemed it necessary to allow the appellant to argue their case before the Tribunal to ensure fairness and uphold the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of by setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the case for a fresh decision after providing the appellant with the opportunity to present their arguments.