2015 (2) TMI 652 - AT - Central Excise

Denial of benefit of exemption notification in respect of the raw material and finished goods in respect of clearance of the goods to the other three EOUs - Entire case was made out on the basis that the word knitted was not mentioned in the invoices - Held that - The Adjudicating Authority observed that the Superintendent Adjudication (Commissioners Office) was present in the office in the whole week including Saturday and Sunday. We find that the appellant categorically mentioned name of the officers in their letter, which was not considered in the adjudication order. In any event, by letter dtd 24.3.2014 the appellant was directed to collect the relied upon documents and to appear hearing on 31.3.2014. The essence of justice requires that a person who is to decide must give the parties a fair hearing before him enabling them to state their case and view. To put in other words, justice demands that the parties should have an opportunity of submitting to the person by whose decision they are to be bound such considerations as in their judgement ought to be brought before him. So, it is difficult to file the reply after taking copies within the period, as specified in the Notice dtd 24.3.2014. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
- Dispute related to classification of goods for clearance to other EOUs
- Allegations of procedural irregularities in adjudication process

Analysis:
1. Dispute related to classification of goods for clearance to other EOUs:
The appellant, a 100% EOU engaged in manufacturing various textile products, faced a dispute regarding the classification of goods cleared to other EOUs. The contention arose from discrepancies in the description of the goods on the invoices. The appellant argued that despite the invoices mentioning "Polyester Gray Fabrics" instead of "Polyester Gray Knitted Fabrics," the actual goods received and certified by the other EOUs were correct. The main grievance of the appellant was the lack of proper opportunity for a fair hearing and the non-supply of relied-upon documents during the adjudication process.

2. Allegations of procedural irregularities in adjudication process:
The show cause notice issued in 2008 proposed duty demand and denial of exemption notification concerning raw materials and finished goods. The appellant requested the relied-upon documents in 2014, but faced difficulties in obtaining them despite multiple attempts. The Adjudicating Authority confirmed the duty demand without granting further hearing, citing the appellant's delay in collecting documents. However, the appellate tribunal found fault with this approach, emphasizing the importance of fair hearings and the right to present a defense. The tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Adjudicating authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the necessity of providing the requested documents and ensuring a proper opportunity for a hearing.

In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the significance of procedural fairness and the right to a fair hearing in adjudication processes. The tribunal's decision to remand the matter back for fresh adjudication underscored the importance of providing parties with the opportunity to present their case and access relevant documents for a just resolution of disputes.