2022 (6) TMI 426 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal remands case for fair hearing, emphasizing procedural fairness and natural justice.

M/s Patil Rail Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, And Service Tax, Jaipur II

The Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order due to the lack of proper opportunity for the appellant to present ... Violation of principles of natural justice - proper opportunity of hearing not provided - calling report from the Jurisdictional Range officer for examining the documents in support of the claim of the Cenvat Credit - HELD THAT:- There is definitely lack of proper opportunity given to the appellant for hearing, as no further date was fixed in the matter after receipt of the report of the Range officer, nor a copy of the report of the Range officer was given to the appellant asking for the reply or comments. The matter is remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority with the direction to provide a copy of the Report of the Range officer to the appellant, and after perusal of the reply and hearing the appellant, to pass the reasoned order in accordance with law - Appeal allowed by way of remand. Issues: Lack of opportunity for hearing, Principle of Natural Justice violation, Remand for adjudicationIn this case, the main issue revolves around the lack of proper opportunity given to the appellant for a hearing, leading to a potential violation of the principle of Natural Justice. The appellant argued that despite the Range officer submitting a report, no opportunity was provided for a hearing or to respond to the report. The impugned order was challenged on the grounds of procedural fairness and the need for a remand for adjudication in accordance with law.The appellant contended that the impugned order-in-original did not adhere to the principle of Natural Justice as no opportunity was granted after the submission of the Range officer's report. The appellant's counsel highlighted the failure to fix a date for a hearing or provide a copy of the report for comments, which deprived the appellant of a fair chance to present their case. This procedural flaw was emphasized as a key reason for challenging the impugned order.Upon hearing both parties, the Tribunal acknowledged the lack of proper opportunity for the appellant to present their case post the submission of the Range officer's report. The Tribunal noted the absence of a fixed date for a hearing or the provision of the report to the appellant for comments. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal by way of remand, setting aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the original Adjudicating Authority with a directive to provide the appellant with a copy of the Range officer's report. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to pass a reasoned order after considering the appellant's reply and conducting a hearing. Additionally, the appellant was directed to appear before the concerned officer with a copy of the Tribunal's order to seek a proper opportunity for a hearing within 90 days.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision focused on rectifying the procedural irregularity by ensuring the appellant receives a fair opportunity to present their case and have a proper hearing in accordance with the principles of Natural Justice. The remand order aimed to uphold the fundamental tenets of procedural fairness and legal rights in the adjudicatory process.