M/S. Arvind Chem Synthetics (P) Vs. C.C.E., Delhi-iii - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....by the commissioner(appeals), new delhi.2. shri d.n. malhotra, advocate appearing for the appellants at the very out-set refers to para 4 of the order-in-appeal in which it is observed that the counsel of the appellants appeared for hearing on 12.10.2000 before him and stated that it is a covered matter vide 1993(22) etr 302 in the matter of watts electronics (pvt.) ltd. vs.collector of central excise, kochi. they also stated that they would be making a written submission within 12 days which they failed to do so.therefore, the appellate authority decided to proceed with the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. the learned counsel for the appellants submits that first of all the date of hearing was 13.10.2000 and not 12.10.2000 as mentioned in the order and secondly, a written submission was duly filed in the office of the commissioner (appeals) on 24.10.2000 i.e., within the period undertaken before the commissioner. the appellants have placed a duly receipted copy of such written submissions filed by them in the office of the commissioner of custom(appeals), new delhi.3. i have considered these submissions. in view of the evidence placed before me, it appears that.....

Judgment:

1.This appeal is filed against the order dated 13/14.11.2000 passed by the Commissioner(appeals), New Delhi.

2. Shri D.N. Malhotra, Advocate appearing for the appellants at the very out-set refers to para 4 of the Order-in-Appeal in which it is observed that the counsel of the appellants appeared for hearing on 12.10.2000 before him and stated that it is a covered matter vide 1993(22) ETR 302 in the matter of Watts Electronics (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs.

Collector of Central Excise, Kochi. They also stated that they would be making a written submission within 12 days which they failed to do so.

Therefore, the appellate authority decided to proceed with the matter on the basis of the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that first of all the date of hearing was 13.10.2000 and not 12.10.2000 as mentioned in the order and secondly, a written submission was duly filed in the office of the Commissioner (appeals) on 24.10.2000 i.e., within the period undertaken before the Commissioner. The appellants have placed a duly receipted copy of such written submissions filed by them in the office of the Commissioner of Custom(Appeals), New Delhi.

3. I have considered these submissions. In view of the evidence placed before me, it appears that the appellants did indeed file a written submission before the Commissioner (Appeals) on 24.10.2000, a duly receipted copy of which is placed on record by them. Since the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is passed on 13/14.11.2000 the contentions in the written submission filed by the party should have been taken into consideration before disposing of their appeal. Since, it has not been done, the order is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and the same is, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remanded to the lower appellate authority for passing a denovo order on taking into consideration the submissions of the party. They shall also be afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing before taking a final view in the matter.