Judgment:
Heard both sides. The appellants are seeking abatement of duty under the Compounded Levy Scheme for the period 16.12.98 to 18.1.99. Shri S.Sridhar, learned Advocate appearing for the appellants states that due intimation as required under the law was given to the jurisdictional authorities about closure of the appellants factory on 15.12.98 and hence the appellants are eligible for the abatement claimed by them.
2. Heard ld. JCDR. He states that the abatement for the impugned period has been denied under jurisdictional Commissioner’s letter dt. 4.2.2000 on the grounds of non-payment of duty in advance and non-compliance of the sealing procedure. However, he fairly states that before taking the decision of disallowing the abatement as contained in the letter dt. 4.2.2000, the Commissioner has not heard the appellants. Considering the fact that the appellants have not been heard before an adverse decision has been taken against them, by the jurisdictional Commissioner, the subsequent action taken by the authorities below to confirm a demand against the appellants is not justifiable. Hence the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the jurisdictional Commissioner for taking a fresh decision on the claim for abatement for the impugned period. He shall allow a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellants before passing the fresh order.
3. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.