2011 (7) TMI 619 - AT - Central Excise

Appeal granted due to procedural error, emphasizing fair hearing rights for appellants.

The delay in filing the appeal was condoned due to valid reasons provided in the application. The appeal, challenging the rejection of a claim for duty ... Remission of duty claimed on molasses which has been lost due to evaporation and deposition - Commissioner rejected their claim but did not issue any order, only an intimation had been sent to the appellants by the Superintendent - Held that:- It is admitted fact that appellants have not been heard by the Commissioner while arriving at the decision of rejection of their claim for remission of duty. Therefore, principle of natural justice has been violated. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide the case afresh. Condonation of delay - Since intimation given by the Superintendent is not appealable order, and order was not issued to appellants even on request, hence, reason explained in the COD application are considered satisfactory and delay is condoned. Issues involved:1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.2. Appealability of intimation given by the Superintendent.3. Violation of principles of natural justice in rejecting the claim for remission of duty.Condonation of delay in filing the appeal:The appellants filed an appeal against an impugned order along with an application for condonation of delay. They argued that the intimation given by the Superintendent, which led to the delay, was not an appealable order. The delay was condoned based on the satisfactory reasons provided in the application. The appeal was taken up for disposal despite no appearance from the appellants or any request for adjournment.Appealability of intimation given by the Superintendent:The appellants had filed a claim for remission of duty on molasses lost due to evaporation and deposition. The Commissioner rejected their claim without issuing an order, only sending an intimation through the Superintendent. As the intimation was not an appealable order, the appellants were unable to file a timely appeal. It was noted that the appellants were not heard by the Commissioner before the decision was made, leading to a violation of the principle of natural justice. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity for the appellants to present their case and receive a speaking order.Violation of principles of natural justice in rejecting the claim for remission of duty:The judgment allowed the appeal by remanding the case, setting aside the impugned order. The decision highlighted the importance of adherence to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing before reaching a conclusion on matters affecting the rights of the appellants.