9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in directing the Excise Authorities to serve a show casue notice to a person though the period of limitation as prescribed under Section 11A of the Act was over? (B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal can direct the original adjudicating authority to serve a show cause notice on another party to whom no such show cause notice was issued therreby expanding the scope of adjudication while remanding an appeal of another appellant?" 3. Brief facts are as under:- 3.1 The appellant - M/s.Premier Heavy Engineering Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as "the appellant company") has challenged an order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ("CESTAT" for short), by which the Tribunal directed the excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant. Such refund claim was rejected by the competent authority by an order dated 08.03.2002 on the ground that the appellant company and the noticee were both one and the same company and the adjudicating authority had already appropriated the said sum of Rs. 4,97,348/- towards excise duty liability. Against this order, the appellant approached the Tribunal after unsuccessfully filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal by the impugned judgment passed following directions:- "3. In view of the finding we set aside the orders impugned and allow this appeals no.E/527 with direction that M/s Premier Heavy Engineering Corporation should be served with the copy of the notice and all the parties to be re-heard by the origin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the Department submitted that the appellant company and the noticee were one and the same entities and the appellant company is dummy of the noticee company. It was therefore not necessary to hear the appellant separately before taking final decision of appropriation of the duty amount. 6. As can be seen from the record, the question relates to the appellant company being dummy of the noticee company. It is not even the case of the Department that before declaring the appellant company as a dummy, hearing was necessary. Merely because the notice was issued on the so called parent company, requirement of hearing the appellant company would not be done away with. It was on this basis that the Tribunal found that the Department had committ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
