2015 (10) TMI 1153 - AT - Central Excise

Restoration of appeal - non-prosecution by Order - Refund claim - Held that - Appellant was directed to furnish the information by Office Letter Dated 04.08.2008 in respect of refund claim. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the appellant had not furnished the information as required by the office to verify the claim of the appellant. On a query from the Bench, the Learned Advocate submits that the appellant furnished the documents in the earlier show cause notice proceedings. In my considered view, the appellant should be given an opportunity to furnish documents before the adjudicating authority in the interest of Justice. - impugned order is set-aside. The matter is remanded to the Adjudicating Authority - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Restoration of appeal dismissed for non-prosecution, rejection of refund claim, furnishing of information for refund claim, remand to Adjudicating Authority.

The judgment pertains to an application for restoration of an appeal that was dismissed for non-prosecution. The judge, after perusing the application, found sufficient reason to recall the order and restored the appeal for hearing. The appellant, a 100% EOU, had removed certain goods to the domestic market during a specific period and was directed by the Superintendent of Central Excise to pay differential duty. The appellant paid the duty and filed a refund claim, which was later rejected through a Show Cause Notice citing specific legal provisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the rejection, leading to the appeal.

Subsequently, the Department issued another Show Cause Notice for a different period, which was dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant was directed to furnish information regarding the refund claim, but the Commissioner observed non-compliance. The judge noted that the appellant should be given an opportunity to submit the required documents before the Adjudicating Authority in the interest of justice. The appellant cited the unavailability of certain documents due to destruction by flood/fire for the earlier years of 2002 & 2003.

The judge set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision after considering the documents and submissions of the appellants. It was emphasized that the Adjudicating Authority must provide a proper opportunity for a hearing before passing any new order. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, ensuring due process and consideration of all relevant factors in the case.