TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>High Court emphasizes fair opportunity in legal proceedings, sets aside Tribunal's order.</h1> <h3>ANJANEYA STEEL ROLLING MILLS Versus CESTAT, CHENNAI</h3> ANJANEYA STEEL ROLLING MILLS Versus CESTAT, CHENNAI - 2011 (272) E.L.T. 62 (Mad.) Issues:1. Central Excise demand based on unaccounted raw materials and finished products.2. Tribunal's order remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.3. Allegation of not receiving summons and lack of opportunity for the petitioner.4. Compliance with service requirements under Section 37C(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act.5. Setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision.The High Court of Madras dealt with a case involving a Steel Rolling Mill where the department issued a show cause notice demanding Central Excise payment due to alleged procurement of unaccounted raw materials leading to production of unaccounted finished products. The Commissioner confirmed the demand and imposed a penalty, which was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner for fresh consideration and to allow the petitioner to present further evidence. Subsequently, the Commissioner dropped the proceedings initiated in the show cause notice. The department appealed against this decision, leading to the Tribunal remanding the matter again for adjudication. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal's decision was made without hearing them and that summons were not received, arguing that the appeal was beyond the limitation period. The Court noted that the Tribunal's order was passed without serving notice to the petitioner, as evidenced by the returned summons due to the factory being closed. The Court highlighted the requirement under Section 37C(1)(b) of the Central Excise Act for serving notices, emphasizing that if service through R.P.A.D. fails, it should be affixed at the factory or residence. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was unjust as the petitioner was not given a proper opportunity. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the matter back for a fresh decision, directing the Tribunal to hear both parties and dispose of the case within six months from the date of the order.In conclusion, the High Court of Madras allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of providing a fair opportunity to the petitioner in legal proceedings. The Court's decision focused on the procedural aspects of serving notices in compliance with the Central Excise Act and ensuring that both parties have the chance to present their case effectively. By setting aside the Tribunal's order and remanding the matter for a fresh decision, the Court upheld the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in the adjudication process.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
