Cce, Pondicherry Vs. M/S. Sumangala Steel Ltd. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/942569
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Decided OnNov-11-2009
Case NumberAppeal Nos. E/1112 of 2003 & 1113 of 2003
Judge THE HONOURABLE DR. CHITTARANJAN SATAPATHY, TECHNICAL MEMBER & THE HONOURABLE MR. P.K. DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AppellantCce, Pondicherry
RespondentM/S. Sumangala Steel Ltd.
Advocates:Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the appellant. Shri M.N. Bharathi, Adv., for the respondent.
Excerpt:
per: p.k. das, revenue filed this appeal against the order of the commissioner (appeals), whereby the adjudication order was set aside. 2. after hearing both sides and on perusal of records we find that the appellants adopted lesser price for the clearance of the finished goods m.s. billets to their rolling mill division. it appears from the order-in-original no. 154/99 dated 24.8.99, that the appellants had not submitted the reply to the show cause notice and also not appeared in personal hearing. the order was passed exparte. it is reflected from the order of the commissioner (appeals) that he passed the order following the decision of the tribunal without discussing the facts of the case. in our view, the impugned order was passed without examining the facts and therefore such order cannot be sustained. in view of that the impugned orders are set aside. the matters are remanded back to the original authority to decide afresh after considering the submissions of the appellants. needless to say that the original authority shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing before decision and the appellants would also co-operate in the adjudication proceedings. the appeals are allowed by way of remand.
Judgment:

Per: P.K. Das,

Revenue filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the adjudication order was set aside.

2. After hearing both sides and on perusal of records we find that the appellants adopted lesser price for the clearance of the finished goods M.S. Billets to their Rolling Mill Division. It appears from the Order-in-Original No. 154/99 dated 24.8.99, that the appellants had not submitted the reply to the Show Cause Notice and also not appeared in personal hearing. The order was passed exparte. It is reflected from the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) that he passed the order following the decision of the Tribunal without discussing the facts of the case. In our view, the impugned order was passed without examining the facts and therefore such order cannot be sustained. In view of that the impugned orders are set aside. The matters are remanded back to the original authority to decide afresh after considering the submissions of the appellants. Needless to say that the original authority shall give reasonable opportunity of hearing before decision and the appellants would also co-operate in the adjudication proceedings. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.