9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (8) TMI 788 - HC - Central ExciseValidity of Tribunal s order - Violation of principle of natural justice - Opportunity of hearing not granted - Held that - Tribunal does not consider the decisions of the Supreme Court, based on which the Original Authority as well as the Commissioner (Appeals) have held in favour of the assessee and there is no discussion on merits on the decision rendered by the lower authorities. The Tribunal, the final fact finding Authority, should go into the merits of the case of the assessee/appellant and render a finding, if not inclined to accept, which legal plea is in favour of the appellant before lower Authorities. - opportunity as sought for by the appellant should have been granted by the Tribunal to enable them to put forward its case. The plea of prejudice is apparent and the counsel has shown bona fides for his absence. - matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assesssee.
Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice by the Tribunal in passing the final order without hearing the counsel of the appellant company. 2. Alleged error by the Tribunal in not following its own earlier decisions and decisions of a co-ordinate Bench. 3. Whether the respondents can avail Cenvat Credit and full exemption under the SSI exemption scheme for the same goods. Analysis: Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice The appellant, engaged in the manufacture of goods, challenged the Tribunal's order due to the lack of a hearing before the final decision. The Tribunal had adjourned the case multiple times, citing the pending Nebulae Health Care case. However, the Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the matter based on other decisions without giving the appellant an opportunity to present their case. The High Court found this to be a violation of natural justice, as the Tribunal did not consider the decisions of the Supreme Court that favored the appellant. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back for a fresh disposal after affording the appellant an opportunity to present its case. Issue 2: Alleged error in not following previous decisions The Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal by the Revenue based on previous Tribunal decisions, which favored the appellant. However, the Tribunal, in a later order, relied on different Supreme Court decisions to allow the department's appeal. The High Court noted that the Tribunal should have considered the decisions of the lower authorities that were in favor of the appellant. The High Court, without delving into the merits of the case, remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of affording the appellant an opportunity to present its case. Issue 3: Availment of Cenvat Credit and full exemption under the SSI scheme The Tribunal, in its final order, held that the respondents were not entitled to simultaneously avail Cenvat Credit and full exemption under the SSI scheme for the same goods. Citing Supreme Court decisions, the Tribunal confirmed the demand of duty against the appellant. However, considering the disputed nature of the issue, the Tribunal decided not to impose any penalty on the appellant. The High Court did not delve into the merits of this issue but remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh disposal, emphasizing the need for the appellant to have an opportunity to present its case. In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal by way of remand, highlighting the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present its case.
|
