M/S Garlon Polyfab Industries Vs. Cce Kanpur - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....to his own case as reported in 2000(12) elt 439(t) (garlon polyfab industries ltd. vs. cce kanpur). he, further, mentioned that the adjudication order was also passed without hearing the appellants which is apparent from the order itself; that the lower appellate authority has also dismissed their appeal without granting a hearing; that even on merit his case is very strong as the invoice was stampted as 'duplicate for transporter' by the supplier of goods.3. countering the arguments, shri swatantra kumar, ld. dr, submitted that it was printed on the impugned invoice no 1936 dt/22-10-94 that it was "h.o.sales copy" which was scored out and a stamp 'duplicate for transporter' was stamped on the same; that accordingly modvat credit is not admissible to the appellants on the strength of such a documents.4. i have considered the submissions of both the sides. as neither the relied upon documents were given to the appellants nor any personal hearing was afforded to them before adjudicating the matter, i allow the appeal and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to decide the matter afresh after following the principles of natural justice. this appeal is allowed by way of.....

Judgment:

1. Today the matter is posted for hearing the Stay Application filed M/s Garlon Polyfab Industries Ltd. As the issue involved is violation of principles of natural justice, the recovery of dues as confirmed, under the impugned Order is stayed and the Appeal is taken up for disposal with the consent of both the sides.

2. Shri R. Santhanam, Ld. Advocate, submitted that show cause notice dt. 21-4-95 was issued to the Appellants for denying Modvat Credit on the ground that the invoice did not contain the printed marking of 'Duplicate for transporter'; that they had requested the Deputy Collector, under their letter dt. 2-5-1995, to furnish the copies of the relied upon documents; that the same had not been supplied to them; that they also did not have their own copies as all their records had ben resumed by the Central Excise Officers on 27-10-1994 in connection with another case. In this connection, the ld. Advocate referred to his own case as reported in 2000(12) ELT 439(T) (Garlon POlyfab Industries Ltd. Vs. CCE Kanpur). He, further, mentioned that the Adjudication Order was also passed without hearing the Appellants which is apparent from the Order itself; that the lower Appellate Authority has also dismissed their appeal without granting a hearing; that even on merit his case is very strong as the invoice was stampted as 'Duplicate for Transporter' by the supplier of goods.

3. Countering the arguments, Shri Swatantra Kumar, Ld. DR, submitted that it was printed on the impugned invoice NO 1936 dt/22-10-94 that it was "H.O.SALES COPY" which was scored out and a stamp 'DUPLICATE FOR TRANSPORTER' was stamped on the same; that accordingly Modvat Credit is not admissible to the Appellants on the strength of such a documents.

4. I have considered the submissions of both the sides. As neither the relied upon documents were given to the Appellants nor any personal hearing was afforded to them before adjudicating the matter, I allow the appeal and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority to decide the matter afresh after following the principles of natural justice. This appeal is allowed by way of remand.