2017 (3) TMI 863 - AT - Central Excise

SSI Exemption - clubbing of clearances - The Original Authority adjudicated the two SCN without taking into consideration submissions by the present appellants and confirmed the demand and imposed equal penalty - Held that - the said Order-in-Original dated 28/11/2005 nowhere makes any mention of any grounds of defence submitted by the appellant for arriving at decision which was passed through said Order-in-Original dated 28/11/2005. Therefore, the Original Authority did not follow the principles of natural justice - matter remanded back to the Original Authority with a direction that the Original Authority shall allow the appellants to submit their defence reply and thereafter offer them opportunity of personal hearing and on hearing decide the matter as per law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to consider defense submissions by the appellant.
2. Lack of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.
3. Absence of personal hearing for the appellant.
4. Appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 80-CE/MRT-l/2007 dated 23/04/2007.

Analysis:

1. The appellant, M/s Atlantic Chemicals Industries, filed an appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. 80-CE/MRT-l/2007 dated 23/04/2007 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs (Appeals), Meerut-l. The case involved two Show Cause Notices issued to the appellants, alleging that three units belonging to the same family were separately claiming Small Scale Exemption under Notification No. 1/1993-CE. The Original Authority adjudicated the notices without considering the submissions by the appellant, leading to a demand for payment. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the decision, prompting the appellant to approach the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued that the Original Authority failed to consider any defense submissions and based the decision on a third notice, violating principles of natural justice. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides, observed that the Order-in-Original did not mention any defense grounds submitted by the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the Original Authority did not adhere to the principles of natural justice. As a remedy, the matter was remanded back to the Original Authority with directions to allow the appellants to present their defense reply, offer a personal hearing, and decide the matter in accordance with the law.

3. The Tribunal emphasized that the Original Authority must follow the principles of natural justice by allowing the appellants to submit their defense reply and providing them with an opportunity for a personal hearing. The appellants were instructed to approach the Original Authority within 30 days, submit their defense reply, and appear for a hearing when required. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, granting the appellants the chance to present their case properly and ensuring a fair adjudication process.

In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision highlighted the importance of upholding principles of natural justice, ensuring that defense submissions are considered, and providing appellants with an opportunity for a personal hearing in legal proceedings.