2013 (12) TMI 395 - AT - Central Excise

Violation of Principle of natural justice Opportunity of being heard not granted to the assessee matter regarding the duty and pre-deposit travelled till Supreme Court Held that - The appellant directed that there should not be any further allegation against the Adjudicating Authority and a cooperative attitude should be followed and should come out with clean hands to defend the allegations in show cause notice filing a detailed reply to show cause notice - The Authority should also in all fairness do justice to the appellant granting reasonable length of time to file reply to show cause, so that the appellant shall get full opportunity to defend its case The appeal remanded back to the adjudicatory authority for reconsideration of the issue as expeditiously as possible Decided in favour of Assessee.

Issues:
1. Violation of principle of natural justice in the adjudication process.
2. Dispute over determination of power consumption and capacity.
3. Consideration of energy audit report as relevant evidence.
4. Cooperation between the appellant and Adjudicating Authority.
5. Time frame for filing reply to show cause notice and conclusion of proceedings.

Issue 1: Violation of principle of natural justice
The appellant raised concerns regarding the violation of the principle of natural justice during the adjudication process. It was argued that no hearing was granted to the appellant, and the grounds of preliminary objection were not fully considered by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant emphasized the need for a reconsideration of the matter to ensure justice. The Tribunal directed the appellant to cooperate with the Adjudicating Authority, refrain from making further allegations, and file a detailed reply to the show cause notice by a specified deadline.

Issue 2: Dispute over determination of power consumption and capacity
A significant dispute revolved around the determination of power consumption per unit of output manufactured by the appellant. The appellant contended that arbitrary determination should be avoided, and a fair trial should be conducted to resolve the dispute. Specific issues included power consumption during the setting up of a rolling mill and the source of power supply for the same. The appellant called for the consideration of national norms to determine production and emphasized the relevance of an energy audit report in assessing power consumption per unit.

Issue 3: Consideration of energy audit report
The Tribunal acknowledged the potential relevance of the energy audit report as evidence in the case. It was highlighted that the report should be considered if deemed relevant in the eyes of the law. Both parties were urged to adhere to the specified time frame for the proceedings, ensuring that no adjournments or dilatory tactics would be employed to delay the process. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of acting expeditiously given the age of the case.

Issue 4: Cooperation between the appellant and Adjudicating Authority
While appreciating the appellant's willingness to resolve the dispute at the grassroots level, the Tribunal directed the appellant to maintain a cooperative attitude towards the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant was instructed not to make further allegations and to come forward with a detailed reply to the show cause notice by a specified date. The Adjudicating Authority was also reminded to grant a reasonable length of time for the appellant to respond adequately.

Issue 5: Time frame for conclusion of proceedings
The Tribunal set a clear time frame for the conclusion of the proceedings, directing that the matter should be resolved by a specified date. Both parties were instructed to adhere to the timeline, with any deviation potentially leading to an ex-parte adjudication. Additionally, it was clarified that the appellant would not seek a refund of any pre-deposit made earlier during the appeal process, and any arising demand would be adjusted against the pre-deposit.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed various issues related to the violation of natural justice, disputes over power consumption, consideration of evidence, cooperation between the parties, and the time frame for concluding the proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of procedural fairness, cooperation, and timely resolution of the dispute while outlining specific directives for both the appellant and the Adjudicating Authority.

← Previous Next →