2016 (12) TMI 719 - AT - Central Excise

Imposition of penalty - exemption criteria not followed - adjudication was beyond the SCN - Held that - The facts of the case would clearly prove there was no commissioning of any offence on the part of the appellant in as much as no duty liability would also have accrued on the main appellant M/s. Devi Fabricators, the charge of contravention of rule 209A is not sustainable - There are no ingredients present under Rule 209A warranting imposition of penalty on the appellant. We normally do not prefer to remand the matter but this is a case, which prima facie shows that appellant may be aggrieved if the appeal is disposed exparte by Tribunal when above grounds of appeals have been raised in the appeal memo, which go to the root of the matter challenging basis of appeal order. We do not prejudge the matter, but prima facie noticing grievance of the appellant that adjudication has travelled beyond the SCN, it is considered that the appellate authority should grant reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant to lead defence and recording his defence both on fact and law shall pass a reasoned and speaking order - In view of the above prima facie observations, appeal is remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals), who shall issue notice to the appellant within three months of receipt of this order and hearing the appellant shall pass appropriate order - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Remand of appeal due to grounds challenging basis of appeal order and adjudication beyond show cause notice (SCN).

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI considered the appeal where the appellant had raised significant grounds challenging the basis of the appeal order. The Revenue acknowledged that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had passed a detailed order, but the appellant's grounds regarding exemption criteria and adjudication beyond the SCN were crucial. The Tribunal noted that the appellant's contentions were substantial and required a fair hearing. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remand the appeal back to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for further proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting the appellant a reasonable opportunity to present a defense and for the appellate authority to pass a well-reasoned order after considering both facts and law. The appeal was remanded to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) with instructions to issue a notice to the appellant within three months, allowing the appellant to present their case before a decision is made. This decision was made to ensure a fair and just resolution based on the grounds raised by the appellant, which challenged the basis of the appeal order and the adjudication process.