M/S. Oswal Agro Mills Vs. Cc, Chandigarh - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the matter was called. shri j.s. sinha, advocate appeared for the appellants, m/s. oswal agro mills. he submitted that the asstt.commissioner of central excise had rejected their refund claims without affording proper opportunity.2. while the date of personal hearing was communicated, the appellants have some genuine difficulties and have sought adjournment. the adjournment was not given and ex-parte order was passed. he prays for remand of the matter.3. we have heard shri mewa singh, sdr and have gone through the facts on record.4. the matter relates to the levy sugar in respect of which the duty has been paid originally as free sale sugar. subsequently, the appellants filed tow refund claims. both the refund claims were rejected on the ground of time bar.5. we find that the adjudicating authority had noted that the appellants have not filed any reply to the show cause notice.6. shri j.s. sinha, advocate submitted that the reply was filed but was not considered. he submitted that if opportunity is given, they will explain their case xxxxxxx to the original authority.7. accordingly, we remand the matter to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for de novo consideration after affording opportunity to the appellants. the appellants are also directed to cooperate with the adjudicating authority. the reply to the show cause notice be also taken on record and considered.accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. ordered accordingly.

Judgment:
1. The matter was called. Shri J.S. Sinha, Advocate appeared for the appellants, M/s. Oswal Agro Mills. He submitted that the Asstt.

Commissioner of Central Excise had rejected their refund claims without affording proper opportunity.

2. While the date of personal hearing was communicated, the appellants have some genuine difficulties and have sought adjournment. The adjournment was not given and ex-parte order was passed. He prays for remand of the matter.

3. We have heard Shri Mewa Singh, SDR and have gone through the facts on record.

4. The matter relates to the levy sugar in respect of which the duty has been paid originally as free sale sugar. Subsequently, the appellants filed tow refund claims. Both the refund claims were rejected on the ground of time bar.

5. We find that the adjudicating authority had noted that the appellants have not filed any reply to the show cause notice.

6. Shri J.S. Sinha, Advocate submitted that the reply was filed but was not considered. He submitted that if opportunity is given, they will explain their case xxxxxxx to the original authority.

7. Accordingly, We remand the matter to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for de novo consideration after affording opportunity to the appellants. The appellants are also directed to cooperate with the adjudicating authority. The reply to the show cause notice be also taken on record and considered.

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed by way of remand. Ordered accordingly.