1996 (5) TMI 223 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Proper hearing and compliance with principles of natural justice.
2. Request for cross-examination of witnesses.
3. Clubbing of two units for exemption under Notification No. 46/81.
4. Remand of the matter for appropriate hearing.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Proper hearing and compliance with principles of natural justice
The appeal was directed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Collector of Central Excise Bombay-II, which imposed duty, personal penalty, and ordered confiscation. The appellants argued that the Collector did not grant proper hearing as the Advocate who represented them was not authorized to submit arguments. The Collector relied on the submissions made by an unauthorized Advocate, leading to a decision without proper clarification. The Tribunal found that the Advocate who made submissions was not appointed by the party, and the request for adjournment and cross-examination of witnesses was not adequately considered. Consequently, the Tribunal ordered a remand for proper hearing in the interest of justice.

Issue 2: Request for cross-examination of witnesses
The appellants had requested permission for cross-examination of witnesses as the issue under consideration depended on factual positions, specifically the clubbing of two units to deny exemption under Notification No. 46/81. The Tribunal noted that this request was not adequately addressed by the Collector, indicating a lack of proper hearing. The failure to allow cross-examination raised concerns about the fairness of the proceedings, leading to the decision for remand.

Issue 3: Clubbing of two units for exemption under Notification No. 46/81
The issue revolved around the clubbing of two units to bring M/s. R.R. Windal within the scope of being a factory, thereby affecting the exemption available under Notification No. 46/81. The Tribunal found that this aspect was crucial to the case and required a thorough examination, including the opportunity for the appellants to present evidence and arguments. The failure to address this issue adequately during the initial proceedings necessitated a remand for a proper adjudication.

Issue 4: Remand of the matter for appropriate hearing
Considering the submissions and the records, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remanded to the adjudicating authority for granting appropriate hearing and a decision according to law. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adducing and appreciating oral evidence, highlighting the need for a fair and thorough process. The appellants were instructed to be present for the personal hearing, and the Commissioner was directed to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai highlighted the significance of proper hearing, compliance with principles of natural justice, and the need for a fair adjudication process, ultimately leading to the decision to remand the matter for further proceedings.