|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 201 to 220 of 482 Records
-
2000 (12) TMI 396
The appeal was admitted after the appellants requested a decision on merits. The application for waiver of pre-deposit was dismissed without a personal hearing, leading to the appeal being dismissed without notice. The impugned order was found to violate natural justice principles, so the pre-deposit of duty and penalty was waived for the appeal hearing. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the waiver application with a personal hearing before proceeding with the appeal.
-
2000 (12) TMI 395
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi granted waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty for a company declared a sick undertaking by BIFR with accumulated loss of over 20 crores. The duty involved was Rs. 10 lakhs and penalty was Rs. 3.5 lakhs. The appeal will be heard in due course. [Case: Jersly India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Delhi-III reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 87 (T)]
-
2000 (12) TMI 394
Issues: Classification of Switch Mode Power Supply (SMPS) under Central Excise Tariff Act
Classification under Chapter 84.71:
The Assistant Collector classified SMPS under Heading 84.71, considering them essential to convert AC current to DC current for computers, as most computers operate solely on DC current. He relied on Chapter Note 5(b) to support this classification, emphasizing that SMPS designed for specific use as part of a system fall under Heading 84.71. He also referenced previous orders supporting this classification.
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals):
The Commissioner challenged the Assistant Collector's classification, arguing that SMPS should be classified under sub-heading 85.04. The Commissioner contended that SMPS do not meet the conditions for classification under 84.71, as they do not provide continuous power supply when the main power source is disconnected and do not rely on computers to function. The Commissioner upheld the classification under 8504.
Arguments in Appeal:
During the appeal, the appellant's counsel presented arguments based on trading practices and Chapter Note 5(b). They referenced a previous decision and contended that SMPS, designed specifically for computers, should be classified under 84.71. They also highlighted that the previous classification under 84.71 was not contested.
Decision by the Tribunal:
The Tribunal considered the arguments and previous rulings, including the Larger Bench's decision on classification consistency. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Collector's classification under 84.71 was appropriate, as SMPS were crucial for converting AC to DC current for computers. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner failed to acknowledge the specific design and exclusive use of SMPS in computers, supporting the classification under 84.71 as per Chapter Note 5(b. The Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and allowed the appeal, affirming the classification under Heading 84.71.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision upheld the classification of SMPS under Heading 84.71, emphasizing their essential role in converting current for computer use. The judgment highlighted the significance of Chapter Note 5(b) in determining the classification based on specific design and exclusive use in computers, ultimately setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and ruling in favor of the appellant.
-
2000 (12) TMI 393
The case involves the excisability and duty liability of bitumenised kraft paper for the period March to June 1976. The appellants applied bitumen to duty paid kraft paper, resulting in bitumenised kraft paper. Show cause notices were issued claiming this process amounts to manufacture. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand, which was upheld by the lower appellate authority. The appeal was rejected based on a Supreme Court decision that bitumenised kraft paper does amount to manufacture.
-
2000 (12) TMI 392
Issues:
1. Excess and shortages found during surprise check at the factory.
2. Seizure of Indian currency and goods based on suspicion.
3. Confiscation, penalties, and fines imposed by the Department.
4. Adjudication by Deputy Commissioner and subsequent appeal to Commissioner (Appeals).
5. Reduction of penalties and fines by the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order.
6. Confirmation of duty liability and penalties under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act.
Analysis:
1. The officers of the Directorate General of Anti-evasion conducted a surprise check at the factory of the appellants, manufacturers of wax coated paper, and discovered various excesses and shortages in the stock of finished products and raw materials. Notably, there were discrepancies in the recorded balances of wax coated paper, TD plain paper, plain poly film, and kraft paper.
2. Following the factory inspection, the officers searched the residential premises of a partner of the appellants and seized Indian currency, suspecting it to be the proceeds of clandestinely removed excisable products. Additionally, the excess stock of finished products and raw materials was also seized based on similar suspicions, leading to a show cause notice proposing confiscation of seized items and imposing penalties for alleged Central Excise Rules violations.
3. The jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise adjudicated the dispute, confirming duty demand on the alleged clearance of finished products manufactured from the shortage of kraft paper. Penalties and fines were imposed on the appellants and their partner under various rules, along with confiscation of goods and currency. The appellants contested this action through a reply to the show cause notice.
4. Subsequently, an appeal was made to the Commissioner (Appeals) challenging the order of adjudication. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld certain penalties but reduced others, including the redemption fine and penalties under specific rules. The confiscation of currency was vacated, while the imposition of a personal penalty on the partner was upheld.
5. The appellate tribunal noted that a subsequent stock verification confirmed the earlier physical verification, and a partner admitted to the consumption of the shortage of kraft paper in the manufacturing process without payment of duty. Consequently, duty liability and penalties under Section 11AC were deemed justified. The confiscation of excess goods was upheld based on non-accountal and the partner's admission of clearance without duty payment.
6. Ultimately, the tribunal upheld the impugned order, affirming the penalties and fines imposed, and rejected the appeal against the decision. The tribunal found the redemption fine and penalties not excessive considering the value of the goods and the reductions made by the lower appellate authority.
-
2000 (12) TMI 391
The Revenue appeal was against disallowance of Modvat credit due to invalid documents. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the claim based on documents from a public sector unit and following relevant notifications and a Bombay High Court judgment. The Appellate Tribunal rejected the Revenue appeal, citing that the pre-authentication issue was addressed properly, and the Commissioner's decision was upheld.
-
2000 (12) TMI 390
Issues:
1. Classification of goods for the purpose of refund of duty under Rule 173L (3) (iii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning the classification of Aluminium ingots and Aluminium sheets for the purpose of refund of duty under Rule 173L (3) (iii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Revenue argued that Aluminium sheets and ingots are different items classifiable under distinct tariff headings, indicating they do not belong to the same class of goods. On the contrary, the Respondent contended that previous Tribunal decisions, such as the Bharat Aluminium Co. Ltd. case, established that goods like aluminium foils and extrusions can be considered of the same class despite being classifiable under different tariff headings. The Respondent also referred to the interpretation of the term "class" in previous cases to support their argument.
The Tribunal examined the meaning of the term "class" in the context of Rule 173L (3) (iii) based on previous decisions. It was noted that the term "class" was interpreted broadly to encompass goods with common attributes or characteristics, even if they are classified under different tariff headings. Citing the case of CCE v. Orissa Cement Ltd, the Tribunal emphasized that goods like fire bricks and mortar were considered to belong to the same class despite being classified under the same Tariff Item. The Tribunal concluded that the decisions and interpretations provided by the Respondent aligned with the broader understanding of the term "class" and, therefore, upheld the Order-in-Appeal, rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
In summary, the judgment focused on the classification of goods for the purpose of refund of duty under Rule 173L (3) (iii) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Tribunal considered previous decisions and interpretations to establish that goods with common attributes or characteristics can be deemed to belong to the same class, even if they are classified under different tariff headings. The Respondent's arguments were supported by previous Tribunal decisions and the broader interpretation of the term "class," leading to the rejection of the Revenue's appeal and upholding of the Order-in-Appeal.
-
2000 (12) TMI 389
Issues:
1. Recovery of irregular Modvat credit taken by a registered dealer.
2. Levy of penalty under Rule 173Q.
Analysis:
1. The case involved a dispute regarding the recovery of irregular Modvat credit taken by a registered dealer. The dealer, authorized to issue Modvatable invoices, faced a situation where the duplicate copy of an invoice was lost. Despite making the necessary entry in the register based on the original copy, the Modvat credit was sought to be reversed by the revenue authority. The Commissioner held that the provisions of Rule 57-I did not apply to registered dealers like the appellant, as they were covered under Rule 174 read with Rule 57GG of the Central Excise Rules. The Commissioner's interpretation was upheld, setting aside the liability imposed on the appellants for recovery of irregular credit.
2. The appellants also challenged the levy of penalty under Rule 173Q. The tribunal noted that the show cause notice did not specify the particular part of the rule under which the penalty was imposed. It was highlighted that the dealer had applied for regularization of the activity to the Jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner within a short period of taking the credit, as required by Rule 57G(6). The tribunal observed that the rule in force at that time did not make the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner mandatory. There was no evidence of verification by the officers regarding the physical receipt of goods. Consequently, the tribunal concluded that the penalty provisions under sub-rules (bb) or (bbb)(I) of Rule 173Q did not apply in this case. As the dealer had not taken impermissible credit and had maintained proper records, the levy of penalty was deemed unsustainable. Therefore, the Commissioner's order upholding the penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 388
Issues: Classification of Flasher Unit, A.C. Drive, D.C. Drive, Thermocouple, and Single Phasing Preventer.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai involved the classification of items such as Flasher Unit, A.C. Drive, D.C. Drive, Thermocouple, and Single Phasing Preventer. The Asstt. Collector classified the Flasher Unit under Chapter sub-heading 8531.00, A.C./D.C. Drive under sub-heading 8503.00, Thermocouple under sub-heading 8548.00, and Single Phasing Preventer under two alternative sub-headings, 8536.90 and 8536.10. The appellants disputed these classifications, claiming under sub-heading 9032.80. Additionally, a Misc. petition was filed for the alternative classification of A.C./D.C. Drive under Heading 8504.00 and to present additional evidence. The appellants relied on legal precedents to support their claims, emphasizing the need for correct classification before the Tribunal.
Regarding the Flasher Unit, the classification under sub-heading 8531.00 was upheld, as the appellants conceded to this classification based on a previous CEGAT decision. The appeal for reclassification under sub-heading 9032.80 was rejected. The classification of Thermocouple under sub-heading 9025.00 was upheld, supported by legal precedents and the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals). The classification of Single Phasing Preventer under sub-heading 85.36 was deemed appropriate by the Tribunal, as its function aligned with the description under this sub-heading for electrical apparatus. The appellants' claim for classification under sub-heading 9032.80 was rejected, and the lower authorities' classification was upheld.
The classification of A.C./D.C. Drive was remanded to the Original Authority for reevaluation in light of a previous Tribunal decision. The Tribunal acknowledged the settled classification under sub-heading 8504.00 and directed a fresh determination by the Original Authority. The appeal related to the rest of the items was rejected, affirming the lower Appellate Authority's orders. Overall, the judgment addressed the classification disputes for each item, providing detailed reasoning and legal references to support the final decisions.
-
2000 (12) TMI 387
Issues:
1. Authorization for filing appeal under Sec. 35B of the Central Excise Act.
2. Effective date of revised price in relation to duty charges.
Issue 1: Authorization for filing appeal under Sec. 35B of the Central Excise Act:
The appeal was filed by the Revenue against the Order-in-Appeal dated 28-6-1993 of the Collector (Appeals). The preliminary objection raised was regarding the authorization by the jurisdictional Collector for filing the appeal. The contention was that the words "not legal or proper" were not included in the text of the authorization, which is required under Sec. 35B(2) of the Act. The ld. counsel relied on various decisions, including the Supreme Court case of Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara v. Rohit Pulp Paper Mills. On the other hand, the ld. DR argued that the mere authorization by the Collector was sufficient for sub-section (2) of Sec. 35B, citing the Tribunal's decision in Commissioner of Central Excise v. NELCO Ltd. and the Supreme Court case of Collector of Cen. Excise v. Berger Paints India Ltd. The Tribunal noted the conflicting views and precedents, ultimately holding that the authorization by the Collector, even without the specific words, was deemed sufficient. The appeal was filed in 1993, and the objection raised by the respondents at that stage was considered belated, leading to the rejection of the preliminary objection.
Issue 2: Effective date of revised price in relation to duty charges:
The core issue revolved around whether the revised price submitted by the assessees in their price list would take effect from the date of filing or approval by the Departmental officers. The assessees filed a price list on 1-11-1991 with a downward revision, which was approved by the Asstt. Collector on 9-3-1992. The department sought to charge duty based on the pre-revised price until the approval date, while the assessees argued that the revised price should be effective from the filing date. The Asstt. Collector sided with the department, but the Collector (Appeals) reversed this decision, relying on legal precedents such as the Apex Court decision in Samrat International v. Collector of Central Excise and the Tribunal's decision in IDPL v Collector of Central Excise, along with a Board circular. The Tribunal upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, stating that the assessees were entitled to clear goods at the revised price from the date of filing the price list. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was deemed meritless and rejected.
This detailed analysis covers the two main issues addressed in the legal judgment, providing a comprehensive overview of the arguments, legal precedents, and final decisions made by the Tribunal.
-
2000 (12) TMI 386
Issues involved: Modvat credit based on original invoice when duplicate copy is lost in transit.
Analysis:
1. The issue at hand revolves around the eligibility of Modvat credit based on original invoices when the duplicate copies are lost in transit. The appellants sought credit against original copies of five invoices for goods purchased in April and May 1994. The Notification No. 23/94-C.E. (N.T.) dated 20-5-1994 introduced Rule 57G (2A) allowing Modvat credit in cases where duplicate copies were lost in transit. However, the invoices in question were issued before this notification. A show cause notice was issued proposing to deny the credit, which was initially rejected by the Assistant Collector. Upon appeal, the case was remanded for a fresh decision. The Assistant Collector eventually allowed the credit, stating that the relaxation under the notification was procedural and could be applied to invoices issued before its enactment.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals) reviewed the case and emphasized that Modvat rules specified the duplicate copy of the invoice as the document for availing credit, with relaxation only applicable when the duplicate copy is lost during transportation. The Commissioner noted that taking credit against the original instead of the duplicate document should be an exception rather than a general practice. In this specific case, the Commissioner found that the respondents sought credit against original invoices where duplicate copies were lost within a short period, indicating a usual rather than exceptional occurrence. Despite no specific provision for such relaxation before the notification, the benefit should have been exceptional. Consequently, the Commissioner set aside the Assistant Collector's decision and upheld the department's appeal.
3. Upon further appeal, the argument was made that the setting aside of the Assistant Commissioner's order was based on a general observation regarding the loss of eligible documents in transit being a common phenomenon. It was contended that this general observation should not be the sole ground for overturning the Assistant Commissioner's decision. The Assistant Commissioner's order was deemed to be legally sound, with no identified illegality or impropriety. The Commissioner's decision was found to lack a substantive basis for setting aside the original order, leading to the restoration of the Assistant Commissioner's decision.
In conclusion, the judgment delves into the nuances of Modvat credit eligibility concerning lost duplicate copies of invoices, the application of procedural relaxations, and the exceptional nature of seeking credit against original invoices. The decision-making process of the Assistant Commissioner and the Commissioner (Appeals) is scrutinized, emphasizing the need for exceptional circumstances for deviating from established practices.
-
2000 (12) TMI 385
The appeal involved the imposition of penalty and interest on M/s. Vacment Packagings (India) Pvt. Ltd. for availing wrong Modvat credit. The penalty of Rs. 2,000 was upheld, but interest was not chargeable as the amount was paid within three months of receiving the demand notice. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2000 (12) TMI 384
Issues:
1. Whether the share borne by dealers in scooter advertisements should be added to the price of scooters for duty assessment.
2. Whether duty is payable for reimbursements made by the manufacturer to dealers for free after-sale services.
Analysis:
1. The dispute revolved around the inclusion of the share borne by dealers in scooter advertisements in the price of scooters for duty assessment. The appellant argued that the cost of advertisement shared between the manufacturer and dealer should not be added to the assessable value for Central Excise duty, citing the precedent set by the decision in Philips India case [1997 (91) E.L.T. 540 (S.C.)]. The appellant contended that duty was paid at a consolidated price, and no deductions were made from this price towards free services. The varying rates of service charges for different towns were neutralized by higher rates in other towns, making no difference to the duty payable.
2. The second issue pertained to duty payment for reimbursements made by the manufacturer to dealers for free after-sale services. The Revenue argued that the reimbursements made did not align with the rates fixed by the manufacturer citywise, resulting in an indirect flow back to the manufacturer. However, the Tribunal noted that during the relevant period, the appellant paid duty on the consolidated price of the scooter without claiming any deductions. Referring to a previous decision in a similar case, the Tribunal held that since duty was paid on the gross price and the cost of free services was reimbursed from that price, no additions were necessary to determine the assessable value. This decision was supported by the Supreme Court judgment in the Philips India case [1997 (91) E.L.T. 540].
3. Based on the above findings, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the manufacturer, providing consequential relief, and rejected the cross objection of the Revenue. The Tribunal emphasized that the decisions in previous cases supported the appellant's position regarding the inclusion of dealer's share in advertisements and the reimbursements for free services in the assessable value for Central Excise duty. The judgment highlighted the importance of paying duty on the consolidated price and the irrelevance of reimbursements in determining duty liability.
-
2000 (12) TMI 383
Issues:
1. Duty demand and penalty imposed on importers for contravention of Customs Act.
2. Denial of exemption under Notification No. 203/92 for imports made against a specific license.
3. Allegations of contravention of Customs Act and violation of Foreign Trade Act provisions regarding availing Modvat credit.
4. Gross denial of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process.
Analysis:
1. The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal concerned the duty demand, penalty, and confiscation of goods imported under an Advance Import Licence. The Commissioner had determined duty demand, ordered confiscation (which was not possible due to unavailability of goods), and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25 lakhs on the importers. The exemption granted under Notification No. 203/92 was denied for imports made against a specific license. The demand of Rs. 60,00182/- along with interest was confirmed under the Customs Act, and a penalty of the same amount was imposed under relevant provisions.
2. The appellants were issued a show cause notice for allegedly contravening Customs Act provisions by importing goods without availing input stage credit (Modvat) on inputs used in manufacturing goods exported against a different license. This contravention was said to violate specific conditions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus. and provisions of the Foreign Trade Act. The Commissioner found that the appellants did not fulfill the DEEC Scheme requirements, leading to the denial of claimed exemptions and subsequent determinations of confiscation, duty demand, and penalties.
3. During the proceedings, the learned Senior Advocate highlighted that the Central Excise Officers were required to verify if goods supplied and exported against the license had availed Modvat credit. The Commissioner noted that the manufacturers denied supplying goods to the exporters, indicating non-compliance with the DEEC Scheme requirements. The adjudicator based the determinations on this information, leading to the imposition of penalties and duty demands.
4. The Tribunal observed a gross denial of principles of natural justice in the adjudication process. Despite the fixing and subsequent adjournment of a hearing date, the appellants were not provided with an opportunity to produce material documents to substantiate their defense. The Commissioner's reliance on information received from Central Excise Officers without disclosing it to the appellants was considered a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order, remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, and emphasized the importance of following natural justice principles in the proceedings.
-
2000 (12) TMI 382
Issues involved: Interpretation of Rule 57A and Rule 57D regarding Modvat credit for inputs used for generation of electricity in a steel mill factory.
Summary:
The case involved Essar Steel Limited appealing against the denial of Modvat credit by the department for using Natural Gasoline Liquid (NGL) to generate electricity in its steel mill factory. The department contended that the NGL did not qualify as an input under Rule 57A due to specific conditions not being met. The Assistant Commissioner and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this view, emphasizing the necessity for electricity to be produced within the factory of production to qualify as an input.
However, Commissioner (Appeals) in Surat took a different stance, stating that any input used in or in relation to the manufacture of the final product could be considered an input. The ambiguity in the definition of "factory of production" under Rule 57A was highlighted, with the Tribunal's previous ruling in Ballarpur Industries Ltd v. CCE supporting the interpretation that the factory of production referred to where the final product is produced, not where electricity is generated.
The argument that electricity is not an intermediate product was refuted based on precedents from the Tribunal and the Madras High Court, establishing that electricity can be considered an intermediate product under Rule 57D. The proviso under sub-rule (2) of Rule 57D clarified that duty credit is allowed for inputs used for generating electricity within the factory of production.
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appeals, determining that the NGL used to generate electricity consumed within the factory qualified as inputs eligible for Modvat credit, while the portion of fuel oil fed into the grid did not qualify. Consequential relief was granted as per the law.
-
2000 (12) TMI 381
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the denial of Modvat credit. The Tribunal found that the invoice issued by the wholesale dealer of the manufacturer, which contained all required particulars, was valid as per Notification No. 15/94. Therefore, the denial of the benefit was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
-
2000 (12) TMI 379
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai found gross violation of natural justice in an ex parte order by the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed not to pass such orders without granting a hearing. Pre-deposit was waived, and the appeal was remanded for de novo consideration with a direction for a hearing before deciding on merits. (Case citation: 2000 (12) TMI 379 - CEGAT, Chennai)
-
2000 (12) TMI 378
The Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Chennai granted waiver of pre-deposit in cases where orders were passed ex parte without granting a hearing. The appeals were remanded for de novo consideration with a specific direction for the appellants to be heard before a decision is made on stay applications. The Tribunal allowed the appeals by way of remand.
-
2000 (12) TMI 377
The Revenue appealed against the order allowing Modvat credit for Clean Flo and Floron Gas used in air conditioners. Revenue argued that Modvat credit is not admissible on items used for up-keep of non-Modvatable items. Tribunal rejected the appeal based on a previous decision regarding the issue.
-
2000 (12) TMI 376
Issues involved: Disregard of principles of natural justice in ordering pre-deposit, dismissal of appeals without granting a hearing, wastage of time and resources due to lack of hearing, misuse of quasi-judicial powers by the Commissioner, remand for de novo adjudication.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Disregard of principles of natural justice in ordering pre-deposit:
The Commissioner ordered a pre-deposit of a substantial amount without granting a proper hearing to the appellants, who were a Public Sector Undertaking. The total amount involved in the appeals was Rs. 52.22 crores, out of which a pre-deposit of Rs. 18.70 crores was ordered. The dismissal of the appeals without a hearing led to a violation of natural justice principles. The Tribunal found this action to be high-handed and unjustifiable, emphasizing the importance of allowing the appellants to present their case before such significant decisions are made.
2. Dismissal of appeals without granting a hearing:
The Commissioner not only ordered the pre-deposit without due consideration but also dismissed the appeals without providing any opportunity for the appellants to present their difficulties or arguments. The Tribunal noted that this approach was arbitrary and lacked proper legal procedure. The failure to grant a hearing resulted in a significant injustice to the appellants, especially considering the substantial amount involved in the case. The Tribunal highlighted the necessity of allowing parties to be heard before making decisions that impact their rights and interests.
3. Wastage of time and resources due to lack of hearing:
The Tribunal expressed concern over the wastage of national resources, including time, money, and effort, due to the Commissioner's failure to conduct a proper hearing. The involvement of senior officers and the Tribunal itself in the case could have been avoided if the Commissioner had followed the principles of natural justice and granted the appellants a fair hearing. This disregard for procedural fairness led to unnecessary delays and additional proceedings in various forums, creating a burden on the legal system and the parties involved.
4. Misuse of quasi-judicial powers by the Commissioner:
The Tribunal referenced a previous case where a similar misuse of quasi-judicial powers was noted, emphasizing the need for officers to act in accordance with the rule of law. The Commissioner's actions were deemed arbitrary and illegal, reflecting a pattern of behavior that disregarded established legal principles. The Tribunal agreed with the observations made in the cited case and concluded that the Commissioner had acted in a manner that was contrary to the rule of law and natural justice, warranting intervention to rectify the situation.
5. Remand for de novo adjudication:
In light of the violations of natural justice and procedural irregularities, the Tribunal set aside the orders-in-appeal and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for reevaluation on merits. The Tribunal waived the pre-deposit requirement considering the hardships faced by the Public Sector Undertaking appellants. The direction was given for the Commissioner to decide the issues on their merits, following the principles of natural justice to ensure a fair and just resolution. The stay applications were disposed of, and the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal principles in the decision-making process.
............
|
9911796707
