1988 (11) TMI 254 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Compliance with Board's directions in Order-in-Appeal
- Failure to conduct re-test as directed by appellate authority
- Jurisdiction and principles of natural justice observed by the Additional Collector

Compliance with Board's directions in Order-in-Appeal:
The appeals were filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur. The appellants contended that the Collector had violated the principles of natural justice by rejecting their request for a re-test of yarn samples. The Board found this rejection unjust and remanded the case to the Collector for de novo adjudication. The Board emphasized that if there were no remnant samples for re-test due to departmental negligence, the benefit of doubt should favor the appellants. The Board's order was challenged, and the Punjab & Haryana High Court precedent was cited, stating that the assessing authority must adhere to the remand order's directions without introducing new points beyond its scope.

Failure to conduct re-test as directed by appellate authority:
The Bench allowed the appeals based on the ground that the Additional Collector failed to comply with the Board's directions on remand. The appellants argued that the Additional Collector did not conduct the re-test as directed by the appellate authority, leading to a failure to extend the benefit of doubt to the appellants. The non-compliance with the Board's directions was deemed unacceptable, and the High Court's decision was cited to support the necessity of adhering to remand orders.

Jurisdiction and principles of natural justice observed by the Additional Collector:
The Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, was criticized for not following the Board's directions for conducting a re-test or extending the benefit of doubt to the appellants. It was argued that the Additional Collector's order lacked jurisdiction and failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice. The Bench concluded that the Additional Collector's non-compliance with the Board's directions was the primary reason for allowing the appeals, without delving into the specifics of jurisdictional issues raised by the appellants regarding the authority responsible for the remand proceedings.