9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sonal hearing has been conducted by the adjudicating authority though, the adjudicating authority has given a notice of hearing on 21.09.2017 but by one notice two consecutive date of hearing i.e. 03.10.2017 13.10.2017 was fixed. In this regard, it is found that it is a settled law that by giving one hearing notice letter even though, two or three dates are given it is to be considered as one date of hearing and as per the statute, minimum three opportunities of personal hearing is required to be given to the assessee. Moreover, the appellant also filed a letter dated 29.11.2017 explaining the reason for non attendance and requested for a fresh date of hearing. However, by that time, the adjudication order came to be passed. As regard the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confiscation no redemption fine can be imposed. Therefore, there are no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) to the extent, it set aside the redemption fine. Appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order by observing the principles of Natural Justice. - HON'BLE MEMBER ( JUDICIAL ) , MR. RAMESH NAIR And HON'BLE MEMBER ( TECHNICAL ) , MR. C L MAHAR Shri Ishan Bhatt , Advocate appeared for the Appellant - Assessee Shri Tara Prakash , Deputy Commissioner ( AR ) appeared for the Respondent- Revenue ORDER RAMESH NAIR The following appeals are filed by appellant M/s. Art Luminaires and its partner Mr. Ashwin Dias and also against the common order by the department that is Com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Dias, who is a partner of the partnership firm M/s Art Luminaires? (iii) Appeal No. E/12864/2018 Whether the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has erred in setting aside the redemption fine of Rs.1,20,00,000/- on the ground that the goods were not available for confiscation? 1.2 M/s. Art Luminaires (hereinafter referred to as the Appellants ) are, inter alia, engaged in the manufacture of lighting fixtures and reflectors falling under Chapter 94 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985.The Appellants have entered into an agreement with M/s. Wipro Ltd. ( Wipro ) for manufacture and sale of lighting fixtures for a mutually agreed price on which excise duty was discharged. The case of the department is that there is relationship ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter dated.29.11.2017 explaining the reason for non attendance and requested for a fresh date of hearing. Meanwhile, without granting another opportunity for hearing, the additional Commissioner has passed Order In Original dated 27.10.2017. As regard the second show cause notice, since the first show cause notice was decided against the appellant, following the same the second show cause notice was also decided by confirming the differential duty demand on the identical grounds as in the earlier show cause notice dated 30.03.2017. Therefore, he submits that there is a clear violation of principles of Natural Justice. Therefore, the Orders In Original as well as Orders In Appeal are not sustainable only on the ground of Natural Justice. He f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 (Kar.) Affirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India 1997 (94) ELT A128(SC) Interocean Shipping Co. v. CST2013 (30) STR 244(T) Sujhan Instruments Vs CCE2019 (368) ELT 135 (T) Prestige Engineering (India) Ltd. Vs. CCE 1994 (73) ELT 497 (SC) Coromandel Paints Ltd. Vs. CCE2010 (260) ELT 440 (T) CCE Vs. Innocorp Ltd 2013 (289) ELT 172 (T) Miraj Drymix Pvt, Ltd Vs. CCE2018 (8) TMI 162-CESTAT New Delhi Symphony Comforts System Ltd. Vs. CCE 2013 (313) ELT 467 (T) Nirmal R. Ruparel Vs. CCE 2014 (304) ELT 711 (T) L.V.T. Products Ltd. Vs. CCE 1997 (93) ELT 134 (T) Kwality Ice Cream Co. Vs. CCE2002 (145) ELT 584 (T) Affirmed in Supreme Court in the case reported at 2010(260) ELT 327 (SC) CCE v. Jai Prakash Motwani2009 (1) TMI 501 - GUJARAT HIGH COU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... came to be passed. As regard the second show cause notice, even though, hearing is conducted but the order was passed on the same line of the order passed in the show cause notice dated 30.03.2017. Therefore, taking total stock of the proceeding, we are of the view that there is a clear violation of principles of Natural Justice in adjudication of the show cause notices. As regard the appeal of Shri Ashwin Dias on whom personal penalty of Rs.30,00,000/- was imposed, we find that Shri Ashwin Dias is undisputedly partner of M/s. Art Luminaires which is a partnership firm. The Hon ble jurisdictional High of Gujarat in the case of CCE v. Jai Prakash Motwani judgment in the case of Shah Petroleum and Snehal Arvindbhai Shah v. C.C.E. S.T. Surat-I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
