2018 (5) TMI 973 - AT - Central Excise

Principles of natural justice - Clandestine removal - case of appellant is that the original adjudicating authority has failed to consider the grounds raised by them before him - Held that - all the contentions put forth at the time of hearing has been held inadmissible - The order also does not record that there was a request for adjournment - the order passed without considering the defence of the appellant raised in their letter dated 7.11.2000, without granting personal hearing is in gross violation of principles of natural justice - matter remanded to the original adjudicating authority to decide after granting due opportunity to the appellants to defend their case - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Appeal against order confirming demand of duty, interest, and penalty due to alleged manufacturing and supplying of computer systems without registration and non-issuance of bills.

In this case, the appellant, M/s Microbyte Systems & Services, filed an appeal against the order confirming the demand of duty, interest, and penalty. The appellant was allegedly engaged in repair, maintenance, and assembling of computer systems. The case was initiated based on intelligence suggesting that the appellant was involved in manufacturing and supplying computer systems without proper registration and issuing bills. Documents seized during the investigation revealed details of computer assembly and supply, leading to the confirmation of Central Excise duty by the lower authority. The appellant challenged the order primarily on the grounds of the original adjudicating authority's failure to consider their submissions and provide an opportunity for a personal hearing, citing a violation of principles of natural justice. The appellant argued that despite submitting written submissions and evidence, the order was passed ex parte without further opportunity for a hearing or submission of evidence, which was deemed a gross violation of natural justice principles. The Order-in-Original did not address the appellant's defense raised in their letter dated 7.11.2000, nor did it mention any requests for adjournment or opportunities for personal hearing. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's arguments, concluding that the orders were passed in violation of natural justice principles. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the original adjudicating authority to allow the appellants a fair opportunity to defend their case. The appeal was allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in adjudicating such matters.