2024 (12) TMI 1091 - AT - Central Excise

Excise duty on waste material - Order-in-Original passed without affording the opportunity of personal hearing to the appellant - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The first show cause notice dated 06.01.2012 involving the demand of Rs. 9,38,922/- on identical issue was dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) dated 28.01.2014 and the Department did not file the appeal against the said order and it has attained finality, therefore, for the subsequent show cause notice, the demand cannot be confirmed. Further, it is found that the impugned order has been passed confirming the demand on the ground not alleged in the show cause notice. Further, it is also found that it is a settled law that the demand cannot be confirmed on the ground which is not set up in the show cause notice. In view of the fact that impugned order has travelled beyond the allegation the show cause notice. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Demand of Central Excise duty on waste materials, violation of natural justice, sustainability of impugned order, invocation of extended period, legal principles regarding confirmation of demand based on show cause notice.

Analysis:
The judgment involves an appeal against an order confirming a demand of Central Excise duty along with a penalty. The appellant, engaged in manufacturing, faced show cause notices for duty on waste materials. The first notice was dropped by the Commissioner (Appeals) and attained finality. The subsequent notices demanded duty on similar issues. The appellant argued that the impugned order violated natural justice by not affording a personal hearing and not addressing specific pleas and case laws. The appellant relied on legal precedents to support the argument that a lack of findings on specific pleas can vitiate an order. Additionally, the appellant contended that the demand cannot be confirmed based on grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice. The appellant also challenged the invocation of the extended period, citing the previous favorable adjudication.

The Tribunal considered the arguments and legal principles cited by both parties. It noted that the previous order dropping the demand on identical issues had attained finality as no appeal was filed. The Tribunal emphasized that confirming the demand based on grounds not alleged in the show cause notice is impermissible. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal reiterated that confirming a demand beyond the scope of the notice is unsustainable in law. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal of the appellant.

In conclusion, the judgment highlights the importance of adherence to natural justice principles, the necessity of addressing specific pleas raised by parties, and the prohibition on confirming demands based on grounds not mentioned in show cause notices. The Tribunal's decision was based on established legal principles and the finality of the previous order in favor of the appellant.