2011 (4) TMI 1102 - AT - Central Excise

SCN two SCN on the same issue by the department for the same period and two orders-in-original were passed Held that - Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has held that the show-cause notice issued on 20/03/1996 is the same as the one issued on 29/02/1996 which apparently is not correct, Commissioner (Appeals) s order is based on wrong appreciation of facts, the order is set aside and the matter remanded to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision after correctly ascertaining the factual position and for a decision on merits in accordance with law

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to multiple show-cause notices on the same issue.
2. Discrepancy in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding the show-cause notices and their applicability.
3. Remand of the matter for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals).

Analysis:
1. The first issue in this case revolves around the rejection of the appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on the presence of two show-cause notices on the same issue by the department for the same period, resulting in two separate orders-in-original. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the department against the order-in-original No. 216/97, citing that the first show-cause notice had already been considered, making the appeal infructuous. However, the learned DR argued that both show-cause notices addressed different issues, with the first one focusing on re-classification of tubes and the second one on the inapplicability of exemption notifications. The Tribunal found that the Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in treating both show-cause notices as the same, leading to the rejection of the appeal. Consequently, the matter was remanded for a fresh decision.

2. The second issue arises from the discrepancy in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision regarding the show-cause notices and their respective issues. The confusion stemmed from the incorporation of the applicability of certain notifications in both show-cause notices, leading to an incorrect assessment by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner (Appeals) had based the rejection of the appeal on a flawed understanding of the facts, which necessitated setting aside the order and remanding the matter for a proper evaluation of the factual position and a decision on merits in accordance with the law.

3. Lastly, the Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a fresh decision by the Commissioner (Appeals) after correctly ascertaining the factual position and considering the issues on their merits highlights the importance of ensuring a fair and accurate adjudication process. By setting aside the previous order and providing directions for a new decision, the Tribunal aims to uphold the principles of justice and legal correctness in the resolution of the case. The remand signifies the need for a thorough and unbiased reconsideration of the matter to reach a just and lawful conclusion.