2013 (11) TMI 1166 - AT - Central Excise

Matter remanded back but authority has not done justice to the appellant Stay application - Held that - Requirement of Pre-deposit dispensed - matter is sent back to the adjudicating authority to do justice to the appellant passing a speaking and reasoned - Relying upon Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Surat Vs. Saheli Leasing & Industries Ltd. 2010 (5) TMI 9 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - Appellant shall be entitled to the confrontation of the verification report which was sought to be used against the appellant - Appellant shall have fair opportunity to show how the defects pointed out in certain invoices gave raise demand Decided in favour of Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Failure of authority to consider relevant evidence after remand
- Defective input invoices not shown by the appellant
- Violation of natural justice in relying on verification report
- Lack of confrontation of verification report to the appellant
- Directions for readjudication and fair opportunity for defence
- Guidelines for passing a reasoned and fair order
- Fixing a timeframe for resolution of the dispute

Analysis:
The primary issue in this case revolves around the failure of the authority to consider relevant evidence even after a remand by the Tribunal in the first round of litigation. The appellant argued that they were not given a fair opportunity to produce relevant evidence, specifically input invoices, which were considered defective by the Department. The appellant contended that they could explain and produce these invoices if given the chance.

Another key issue raised by the appellant was the violation of natural justice in the adjudication process. The appellant pointed out that the CENVAT credits held inadmissible were based on a verification report that was not confronted to them, making their defence weak before the authority. The appellant emphasized the importance of being able to confront and defend against any adverse reports or findings.

In light of the factual circumstances, the Tribunal directed the adjudicating authority to ensure a fair process for the appellant. The directions included allowing the appellant to confront the verification report used against them, considering their defence, providing an opportunity to address defects in invoices leading to demands, and allowing a defence on legal points during the readjudication process.

Moreover, the Tribunal highlighted guidelines for passing a reasoned and fair order, citing the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a specific case. These guidelines emphasized the importance of relevance, coherence, readability, and timeliness in judicial orders to ensure clarity and fairness in the decision-making process.

Lastly, to expedite the resolution of the dispute, the Tribunal appreciated the appellant's request for a fixed timeframe. They directed the appellant to make an application for a hearing date within two months, with the adjudicating authority required to pass an order within three months of the conclusion of the hearing. This timeframe aimed to prevent delays and send a positive signal to both litigants and society regarding timely resolution of legal matters.