Full Judgment
2. The Commissioner in the impugned order referred to the show cause notice which alleged that the manufacturer of the export goods having taken input stage Modvat credit, the conditions of Notification 203/92-Cus were violated and therefore the duty mentioned above was chargeable. In his ex parte order the Commissioner maintained that the respondents had not filed reply nor had they attended the personal hearing.
3. From the records we find that on receipt of the show cause notice, the present appellants had written to the Commissioner to the effect that the licence number quoted in the show cause notice was wrong and that the number showed was the import export code number. There was no response from the Commissioner to this reply. It is true that the memoranda was not received by the appellants and therefore they could not attend the hearing. On merits, certificates from the supporting manufacturers are on record wherein the categorical claim is made that the manufacturers were operating under small scale exemption notifications and as such they had paid no duty and not taken Modvat credit.
4. On the grounds we hold that the learned Commissioner had not given due opportunity to the appellants to state their case before him. We also find that the impugned order has not been signed by the Commissioner but that in attestation it is shown that he has signed the file copy. This is entirely irregular. An order of adjudication unless signed by the maker thereof is not a valid document. We caution the learned Commissioner not to repeat this error in future.
5. This appeal is allowed. The proceedings are remitted back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is directed to give sufficient notice to the appellants to state their case before him and then pass a well reasoned speaking order.
6. Copy of this order be marked to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai so that he could caution the Commissioner against not signing the orders in adjudication.