9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (12) TMI 649X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2012 - Dated:- 27-8-2012 - S.K. Gaule And D.M. Misra, JJ. Appellant Rep by: Shri P.R. Mullick, Adv. Respondent Rep by: Shri S. Misra, AR(Addl. Commr) Per: S K Gaule: Heard both sides. 2. The Appellant filed this Appeal against the Order-in-Original No.CCE/BBSR-I/38/2009 dated 18.12.2009, whereby the learned Commissioner has confirmed the proposal in the Demand-cum-Show Cause Notice against the Appellant. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the Appellant are engaged in the manufacture of excisable products namely, Sponge Iron, M.S.Ingots and Runner Riser falling under Chapter Heading No.72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They were also availing CENVAT Credit on Capital Goods, Inputs and Input S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Credit of Duty prematurely, and the learned Commissioner decided their case ex parte, without granting them the effective hearing and without considering the aspect that they had paid the total duty involved in this case along with interest due, on delay in payment of duty, and despite that fact, the learned Commissioner confirmed the total demand of duty of Rs.1,31,35,915/- and imposed an equal amount of penalty. This is nothing but a grave breach of principle of natural justice. In their support, they placed reliance on this Tribunal's decisions in the case of Meenakshi Associates(P) Ltd; vs. CCE, Noida reported in 2009 (245) ELT 362 (Tri.-Del.) and in the case of Jindal Waterways Ltd. vs. CC(Export), Nhava Sheva reported in 2009 (247 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssioner of Central Excise on 16-2-2009 at 11.00 A.M., who will fix the date of hearing and to decide the matter expeditiously. The appeal is allowed by way of remand." 6.1. The Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Jindal Waterways Ltd.(supra) at paras 6,7,8 held as under:- "6. In the case in hand, undoubtedly the matter was fixed for hearing on 8th October 08 as well as on 14th October, 08. In fact the date 8-10-08 was fixed on the request of the Advocate for the appellants. However, on failure of the Advocate on 8-10-08, the matter was adjourned to 14-10-08. It is pertinent to note that when earlier notice about fixing of hearing on 14-10-08 was issued, the Advocate for the appellants had informed the authority that the date of 14-10-08 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r adjournment of the personal hearing afforded them, vide their letter dated 11.02.2009, which was also acknowledged, however, the impugned Order was subsequently passed ex parte without giving any finding for not granting adjournment. In these circumstances, the case is remanded to the learned Commissioner to decide the case afresh, by granting the effective hearing to the Appellant. At this juncture, the learned Advocate appearing for the Appellant also submitted that they had already paid the total Central Excise Duty along with interest for delayed payment of duty. In these circumstances, the learned Commissioner is directed to keep the above aspect in mind while deciding the case. The Appeal is allowed by way of remand. - - TaxTMI - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
