9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (8) TMI 410X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the audit was undertaken by the Departmental Audit Officers - Being a small labour service contractor and not well aware of that law,appellant did not attend the personal hearings also - Commissioner (appeals) rejected the submissions considering as additional ground - Held that:- matter remitted back to the original adjudicating authority who shall decide the issue on merits after giving rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nalty under Section 76 and Section 77 were imposed and further interest was also demanded. Appeal filed by the appellants has been rejected on the ground that having failed to defend the case before the original adjudicating authority, appellant cannot putforth new grounds before the Commissioner (Appeals) in terms of Rule 5 of Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, 2001. 2. The learned advocate submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nance Act, 1994 or sought lenient treatment under Section 80 of Finance Act, 1994, the action of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the submission of all the grounds on the ground that they were additional grounds and hence cannot be admitted under Central Excise (Appeals) Rules, cannot be sustained. According to him this is a case of non observance of principles of natural justice ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nnot be found to be negligent, he has to be given another chance to defend himself. The learned Commissioner need not have treated the case as one covered by the Rules since this is a case where principles of natural justice had not been observed even if the appellant had contributed in view of the fact that he had paid the service tax and interest he deserved another chance. In view of the above, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
