2008 (7) TMI 334 - AT - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal remits case due to legal infirmity, emphasizes natural justice

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI remitted the case back to the Adjudicating Authority due to legal infirmity and violation of natural justice in ... First appellate order suffers from legal infirmity and gross violation of natural justice - it would be noticed from the order itself that when a material gave rise to civil consequence of levy of duty and criminal consequence of levy of penalty, no opportunity of rebuttal was granted to the Appellant - It is elementary principle of jurisprudence that no one shall be condemned without being heard - matter remanded back to the learned Adjudicating authority below Issues:Appeal based on legal infirmity and violation of natural justice in the first appellate order. Dispute over whether goods were supplied as parts of a complete air conditioner or as a complete air conditioner itself. Levying of Special Excise Duty (SED) in both appeals.Analysis:The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT NEW DELHI, involving two appeals arising from a common order, addressed the issue of legal infirmity and violation of natural justice in the first appellate order. The appellant's counsel argued that the order suffered from these flaws, as no opportunity for rebuttal was granted despite civil and criminal consequences being at stake. The counsel emphasized the importance of natural justice and fair trial, asserting that the appellant had not been given a chance to present a defense or evidence against the material proposed to be used against them. The Tribunal acknowledged the necessity of due process and remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to ensure the appellant's right to be heard and to confront the relevant report, emphasizing the need for a fair opportunity and the satisfaction of natural justice.The dispute at hand revolved around whether the appellant had supplied goods as parts of a complete air conditioner or as a complete air conditioner itself, leading to the question of the leviability of Special Excise Duty (SED) in both appeals. The Respondent-Revenue's representative argued that the appeal focused on different aspects rather than primarily on natural justice, citing various apex court judgments to support their position. However, the Tribunal, after hearing both sides and reviewing the records, found that the matter required adherence to the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal highlighted the fundamental principle that no one should be condemned without being heard and emphasized the importance of granting the appellant a fair opportunity to present their case and evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to ensure justice for both parties involved.In conclusion, the judgment underscored the significance of natural justice and fair trial procedures in legal proceedings, emphasizing the need for parties to be heard and given a fair opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal's decision to remit the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority aimed at rectifying the lack of due process in the initial order, thereby ensuring a just resolution for both the appellant and the Respondent-Revenue.