M/S. Mardia Steel Ltd. Vs. C.C.E., Indore - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the appellant filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the commissioner (appeals) whereby the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of sec. 35 f of the act.4. the appellants availed the benefit of modvat credit in respect of capital goods under rule 57 q of the rules. a show cause notice was issued to the appellants for disallowing the modvat credit. the adjudicating authority disallowed the modvat credit and confirmed the demand. against the impugned orders passed by the adjudicating authority, the appellants filed the appeals before the commissioner (appeals) alongwith an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.the commissioner (appeals) decided the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and, thereafter, without issuing any notice, dismissed the appeals. in the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty before the commissioner (appeals), the appellants took a specific plea that the goods, in question, are used for testing of material and are covered under the expression "are used for production". the appellants also took a specific plea that these are parts of spectometer, which is a testing equipment. these contentions of the appellants were not considered by the commissioner (appeals) while passing the interim stay order. in compliance to interim stay order no.572-ce/bpl/99 dated 21.06.99, the appellants vide letter dated 06.07.99 submitted the compliance report. in spite of compliance, their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the stay order by the commissioner (appeals) vide order-in-appeal no. 970 dated 16.7.99.5. in other appeal, the stay order was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and the appellants vide letter dated 6.7.99 made a request for modification of the stay order and the commissioner (appeals), without considering the modification application, dismissed the appeal vide impugned order.therefore, the stay order as well as the impugned orders are passed in violation to the principles of natural justice.6. from the above, it is clear that in one case, in spite of compliance to the stay order, the appellants' appeal was dismissed and in other case, the order was passed in violation to the principles of natural justice, hence, both the orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the commissioner (appeals) for deciding afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants.the appeals are disposed of by way of remand.

Judgment:
1. The appellant filed these appeals against the order-in-appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) whereby the appeals are dismissed for non-compliance to the provisions of Sec. 35 F of the Act.

4. The appellants availed the benefit of MODVAT Credit in respect of capital goods under Rule 57 Q of the rules. A show cause notice was issued to the appellants for disallowing the MODVAT Credit. The adjudicating authority disallowed the MODVAT Credit and confirmed the demand. Against the impugned orders passed by the adjudicating authority, the appellants filed the appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) alongwith an application for waiver of pre-deposit of duty.

The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and, thereafter, without issuing any notice, dismissed the appeals. In the applications for waiver of pre-deposit of duty before the Commissioner (Appeals), the appellants took a specific plea that the goods, in question, are used for testing of material and are covered under the expression "are used for production". The appellants also took a specific plea that these are parts of spectometer, which is a testing equipment. These contentions of the appellants were not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) while passing the interim stay order. In compliance to Interim Stay Order No.572-CE/BPL/99 dated 21.06.99, the appellants vide letter dated 06.07.99 submitted the compliance report. In spite of compliance, their appeal was dismissed for non-compliance to the stay order by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide Order-in-appeal No. 970 dated 16.7.99.

5. In other appeal, the stay order was passed without affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants and the appellants vide letter dated 6.7.99 made a request for modification of the stay order and the Commissioner (Appeals), without considering the modification application, dismissed the appeal vide impugned order.

Therefore, the stay order as well as the impugned orders are passed in violation to the principles of natural justice.

6. From the above, it is clear that in one case, in spite of compliance to the stay order, the appellants' appeal was dismissed and in other case, the order was passed in violation to the principles of natural justice, hence, both the orders are set aside and the matters are remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for deciding afresh on merits after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants.

The appeals are disposed of by way of remand.