Fair hearing in refund disputes: Tribunal order set aside and appeals remanded for fresh merits-based reconsideration.

The Tribunal's disposal of the revenue appeals was set aside because the assessee had not been given a proper opportunity and the appeals required reconsideration on merits. The High Court rejected the argument that the refund objection was absent from the notice, noting that the corrigendum expressly referred to rejection of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 where drawback or rebate had been availed. However, the Court accepted that the Tribunal had decided the matter without fully examining the merits, including the propriety of the earlier adjudication order, and remanded the appeals for fresh decision after hearing both sides.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Tribunal's order rejecting the refund claim and allowing the Revenue's appeal was liable to be set aside for want of proper hearing and for fresh consideration on merits.

Analysis: The dispute turned on the legality of the Tribunal's disposal of two revenue appeals and whether the assessee had been denied a fair opportunity. The Court noted that the corrigendum to the show cause notice specifically referred to rejection of refund under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 if drawback or rebate had been availed, and therefore the contention that the ground was absent from the notice was untenable. At the same time, the Court found substance in the grievance that the Tribunal had disposed of the appeals without going into the merits and that the matter required reconsideration after hearing both sides, including the propriety of the earlier adjudication order.

Conclusion: The impugned Tribunal order was set aside and the matters were remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision on merits after hearing both parties.

---