2013 (10) TMI 889 - AT - Central Excise

Remission of duty - rejecting the remission application - Principles of Natural Justice - Appeal Against Rejection of Remission Application Rule 21 of the CE Rules Held that - The order is only an intimation to the appellant on behalf of the Commissioner that their claim of remission of duty has been rejected that you have not taken proper care for fire accident but no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant - the order is in gross violation of principles of natural justice - Same is set aside and matter is remanded to the ld. Commissioner for fresh consideration of the issue with a direction to decide the issue afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues: Rejection of remission application under Rule 21 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and recovery of duty on goods lost in fire.

Rejection of Remission Application:
The appeal was filed against the rejection of a remission application under Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The appellant argued that the rejection was a violation of natural justice as they were not given an opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal agreed, stating that the order was in gross violation of principles of natural justice as no hearing was provided to the appellant. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration with a direction to decide the issue after giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to present their case.

Recovery of Duty on Goods Lost in Fire:
The second appeal was related to the recovery of duty on goods lost in a fire incident, arising from the order passed in the first appeal. The Tribunal found that the second appeal was premature as it was linked to the decision on the remission application. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the Adjudicating authority to decide the issue after the decision in the remission application. Both the stay application and the appeal were disposed of accordingly.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, ensuring that parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case. The judgments highlighted the need for proper hearings and considerations before making decisions on remission applications and duty recoveries. The appeals were dealt with by setting aside the initial orders and remanding the matters for fresh consideration, emphasizing the significance of due process in legal proceedings.