Tribunal grants relief to appellants in Central Excise duty appeal, emphasizing right to present evidence.

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing appeals by the main appellants involved in Central Excise duty. Allegations of fraudulent export under the DEPB scheme led to penalties, challenged through appeals. Despite ex-parte orders, the tribunal set them aside, remanding the matter for a fresh decision by the original authority. The tribunal emphasized the appellant's right to present evidence and cooperate, warning of legal consequences if not. All appeals were allowed through remand, granting the appellants a chance to present their case effectively.

---

---

Issues:
- Delay in filing appeals
- Allegations of fraudulent export under DEPB scheme
- Ex-parte orders passed without considering appellant's reply
- Remand of the matter to original authority for denovo decision

Delay in filing appeals:
The delay in filing the appeals was condoned by the tribunal for reasons mentioned in the applications, and the appeals were admitted. The main appellants were engaged in the production and clearances of goods attracting Central Excise duty. The appellant, formerly known as M/s. Krishna Profiles Pvt. Ltd., was registered with the Central Excise Department and availing the cenvat credit facility. The appellant was also involved in import and export business but later closed their manufacturing activity.

Allegations of fraudulent export under DEPB scheme:
The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) initiated an investigation against the appellant for fraudulent export under the Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scheme and the claim of rebate. The DRI alleged that the appellant was claiming rebates based on false documents and Bills of Entry. Following a search at the premises, penalties were levied on the appellant and other involved parties. The appellants challenged these penalties by filing appeals against the original order.

Ex-parte orders passed without considering appellant's reply:
The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court against the show cause notice, which was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed with directions to file a preliminary reply within two weeks. The appellant submitted the reply within the stipulated time, but the Commissioner passed the impugned order without considering the reply. The tribunal noted that the impugned orders were passed ex-parte without taking cognizance of the appellant's submissions. The tribunal set aside the orders and remanded the matter to the original authority for a fresh decision, providing the appellant with a reasonable opportunity to present their case and submit fresh evidence.

Remand of the matter to original authority for denovo decision:
In the interest of justice, the tribunal remanded the matter to the original authority for a denovo decision on merit, with the liberty to the appellant to file fresh evidence. The tribunal emphasized that if the appellant does not cooperate, the law will take its course. The tribunal also directed the remand of the matter to both the Indore and Bhopal Commissionerates for further proceedings. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the appellants were allowed by way of remand, providing them with an opportunity to present their case effectively.

---