2011 (4) TMI 927 - AT - Central Excise

CESTAT Delhi: Appeal Allowed on Natural Justice Grounds, Order Set Aside for Reconsideration

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, DELHI set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order due to a violation of the principle of natural justice. The Tribunal ... Duty on samples used for in house testing - Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal filed by the party and allowed the appeal of the department - Held that:- The very same Commissioner, who ordered review of the original authority's order, decided the appeal on his transfer as Commissioner (Appeals) and the same is not in conformity with the principle of natural justice. Set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter for fresh consideration. This will be decided by the Commissioner (Appeals) other than the Commissioner who recommended for filing of the appeal against the order of the original authority dated 16.2.2010. Issues: Leviability of duty on samples used for in-house testing, Principle of natural justice violation by the CommissionerThe judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, DELHI revolves around the dispute concerning the leviability of duty on samples utilized for in-house testing. The original authority confirmed the duty on samples cleared for testing purposes under section 4(10)(b) of CEA, 1944, along with imposing a penalty and dropping the proposal for goods confiscation. Subsequently, the Commissioner reviewed this order, leading to appeals filed by both the department and the party before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the party's appeal but allowed the department's appeal. The advocate for the appellants contended that the same Commissioner who ordered the review also decided the appeals post his transfer as Commissioner (Appeals), raising concerns about the violation of the principle of natural justice.The Tribunal, considering the circumstances, found it inappropriate for the Commissioner who initiated the appeal to also decide on it as the Commissioner (Appeals) after his transfer. In light of this, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner (Appeals) order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. It was directed that a different Commissioner (Appeals) should handle the reconsideration, distinct from the one who recommended the appeal against the original authority's order. Consequently, the appeal was allowed through remand, and the stay petition was also disposed of during the proceedings.This judgment highlights the importance of upholding principles of natural justice in administrative decisions, ensuring fairness and impartiality in the adjudication process. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for fresh consideration by a different authority underscores the significance of avoiding potential conflicts of interest and maintaining procedural propriety in legal proceedings.