Remission of duty requires notice, hearing and a speaking order; Tribunal jurisdiction was absent for the Revenue's appeal.

An appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting remission of duty under Rule 49 was held not maintainable before the Tribunal under Section 35B; the proper remedy for the Revenue lay before the revisional authority, so the Revenue's appeal failed for want of jurisdiction. Rejection of an assessee's remission request by letter, without a show cause notice, hearing, or speaking order, was contrary to natural justice and invalid. The matter required reconsideration after notice and opportunity of hearing.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to entertain the Revenue's appeal arising from an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; and (ii) whether rejection of the assessee's request for remission of duty without issuing a show cause notice and without passing a speaking order was valid.

Issue (i): whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to entertain the Revenue's appeal arising from an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) granting remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944

Analysis: The appeal related to loss of goods and remission of duty under Rule 49. The Tribunal accepted the preliminary objection that, in such matters, the statutory scheme under Section 35B did not confer appellate jurisdiction on the Tribunal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals), and the proper remedy for the Revenue lay before the Revisional Authority.

Conclusion: The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Revenue's appeal and the appeal was rejected.

Issue (ii): whether rejection of the assessee's request for remission of duty without issuing a show cause notice and without passing a speaking order was valid

Analysis: The application for remission of duty had to be decided by the Commissioner after following the prescribed procedure. Since the request was effectively rejected through a letter issued by the Additional Commissioner, without notice to the assessee and without affording an opportunity of hearing or passing a speaking order, the procedure adopted was contrary to natural justice.

Conclusion: The rejection was invalid and the matter required reconsideration after issuance of a show cause notice and grant of hearing.

Final Conclusion: The Revenue's challenge failed for want of jurisdiction, while the assessee succeeded in securing a procedural remand for fresh consideration of the remission request in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: An appeal against an order of the Commissioner (Appeals) concerning remission of duty under Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 is not maintainable before the Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and remission cannot be refused without notice, hearing, and a speaking order.

---