Judgment:
1. These are four appeals filed by Portland Cement (India) Ltd. and others against Order-in-Original No. 3/Commr/LKO/99/ dated 25-6-1999.
2. Shri R. Santhanam, learned Advocate, submitted that the Show Cause notice dated 17-9-1997 was issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Kanpur and was answerable to him only; that, however, the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Lucknow without informing them as to how the matter has been adjudicated by the Commissioner, Lucknow; that further no personal hearing was granted to them by the Adjudicating Authority before passing the impugned order; that as such there has been gross violation of principle of natural justice and the order should be set aside.
3. On the other hand, Shri Kumar Santosh, learned Senior Departmental Representative submitted that the show cause notice was issued on 17-9-1997 and was served upon the Appellants on 18-9-1997; that the Commissioner had fixed the matter for personal hearing on three dates; that the last such dated was 22-5-1998 when no one appeared for personal hearing nor any adjournment was sought by the Appellants; that a letter of their Counsel dated 12-5-1998 was received in which he had undertaken to submit the reply to the show cause notice by 15-6-1998; that the Commissioner thereafter waited for the reply from the Appellants and after waiting for sufficient period, the Commissioner had adjudicated the matter as no communication was received from either of the appellants. He, therefore, contended that the sufficient time and sufficient opportunities had been provided to the Appellants to represent their case which had not been availed of by them; that in view of this, there is no violation of principles of natural justice.
4. In rejoinder the learned Advocate submitted that the last date of hearing was also fixed by the Commissioner of Central Excise Kanpur as the Appellants have sent a communication in pursuance of the date of hearing to the Commissioner of Central Excise Kanpur only.
5. We have considered the submissions of both the sides. We observe that as per the impugned order, the last date of personal hearing granted to the Appellants was on 22-5-1998. The impugned order has been issued on 30-6-1999 that is after more than 13 months. Before passing the impugned order, after a lapse of 13 months from the last date of hearing, no further hearing has been fixed by the Adjudicating Authority. If the adjudicating authority had taken 13 months time for passing the impugned order, opportunity of hearing should have been afforded to the appellants. We, therefore, agree with the learned Advocate that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. We, therefore, without going into the merits of the matter, remand all the appeals to the adjudicating authority with the direction to read judicate the matter after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants. All the appeals are thus allowed by way of remand.