| SooperKanoon Citation | sooperkanoon.com/26981 |
| Court | Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Calcutta |
| Decided On | Dec-12-2001 |
| Reported in | (2002)(82)ECC411 |
| Appellant | Ashok Kumar Durani, Vasulal |
| Respondent | Commissioner of Customs |
2. The Advocates appearing on behalf of the applicants/appellants made a grievance of the fact that in spite of a clear direction by the Tribunal to supply the copies of the relevant documents to the applicants/appellants, the same have not been given to them. Shri P.K.Das, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant/appellant, Shri Pratic Kumar Sen, has also assailed the said Order on the ground that the Commissioner has confirmed the earlier Order-in-Original which was set aside by the Tribunal and as such, had become non-est. He has sought for setting aside of the impugned Order on the said sole ground.
3. After considering the submissions made by the applicants/appellants on the point of violation of principles of natural justice, we find that they were given the opportunities of personal hearings, but the same were not attended by them on one pretext or the other. However, we agree with the applicants/appellants that the copies of the relevant documents were not supplied to them. We, further, find that the Commissioner in his impugned Order, has observed as under:- ".....I confirm the decision passed earlier in the Order-in-Original No. 18/99-CCP dated 10.12.99 passed under the relevant provisions of Customs Act, 1962....." The above Order-in-Original was set aside by the Tribunal vide its Order No. 819-822/CAL/2000 dated 22.6.2000 and as such, had ceased to exist in the eyes of law. Since the Order itself had become non est, it is not understood how the same could have been confirmed by the adjudicating authority vide his impugned Order. It is also seen that the adjudicating authority was deciding the case in de novo proceedings as an original adjudicating authority and was not sitting in an appellant capacity so as to confirm the earlier Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner. The Tribunal in the case of Universal Asbestos Mfg.Co.(P) Ltd. v. C.C. Ex., Calcutta reported in 1987 (29) ELT-235 (T) has held that an Order which does not exist in the yes of law on account of having been set aside by the Tribunal, cannot be confirmed in de novo adjudication proceedings by the Commissioner. As such, we are of the view that the impugned Order is liable to be set aside on this ground alone. We order accordingly and remand the matter to the Commissioner for fresh adjudication.
4. We would like to observe here that the applicants/appellants would be supplied with the documents relied upon by the Revenue in support of its case. We make it clear that in case the applicants/appellants desire to look into any other document not supplied by the Revenue, they may make a specific request to the adjudicating authority to that effect. In case of inspection of the originals, also a specific request would be made by them. The applicants/appellants would cooperate in all respects with the Revenue Authorities and would appear before the adjudicating authority on the date of hearing so fixed by him who would intimate about such date well in advance of the same.
All the appeals are thus allowed by way of remand. We make it clear that no opinion is being expressed on the merits of the cases. Stay Petitions also get disposed of. We expect the (sic) to conclude the proceedings expeditiously.