PUNEET STEELS & ALLOYS Vs. CCE, JAIPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On careful examination of the records of this case and on hearing both sides, I find that this is a fit case for remand and accordingly, after allowing the present application unconditionally, I proceed to dispose of the appeal itself finally.

(2.) The appellants, who were engaged in the manufacture of M.S. Ingots falling under Chapter Sub -Heading 7206.90 and were covered by the provisions of Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules read with Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, filed an abatement claim with the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise for certain period. This claim was rejected by the Commissioner without personal hearing. The party, therefore, preferred appeal to this Tribunal. The Tribunal by order dated 24.11.99 set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the matter to that authority for fresh disposal in accordance with the principles of natural justice. While the abatement claim was originally pending before the Commissioner, show -cause notice dated 4.9.98 had been issued to the party by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner alleging that an amount of Rs.32,70,690/ - was yet to be paid by them for the period September, 1997 to March, 1998 on the basis of their annual capacity of production (ACP) determined under Rule 96ZO. The show -cause notice proposed to recover the said amount under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act and to impose penalty on the party under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules. The appellants, in their reply to the show -cause notice, requested for dropping the proceedings. They submitted, inter alia, that the factory had remained closed for most of the time and, therefore, they were not liable to pay the duty demanded. The dispute was adjudicated by the Joint Commissioner as per Order dated 22.7.99, which was passed without any personal hearing. The Joint Commissioner confirmed the demand of duty to the extent of Rs.3,67,464/ - against the party for the period 1.9.97 to 31.3.98 and imposed on them a penalty of Rs.1.5 lakhs under Rule 209 of the Central Excise Rules. Aggrieved by the order of the Joint Commissioner, the party preferred appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals). The lower appellate authority upheld the Joint Commissioner's order as per Order dated 4.8.2000. This order also was passed without granting any opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants. The Commissioner (Appeals) dispensed with personal hearing for the reason that the appellants had not asked for the same. Moreover, as regards the appellants' grievance against non -grant of personal hearing by the adjudicating authority, Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) observed that such non -grant of personal hearing did not violate the principles of natural justice. In the present appeal before the Tribunal, the order of the Commissioners (Appeals) is under challenged.

(3.) I have heard both sides.