TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal emphasizes procedural fairness in excise duty disputes, stresses right to contest evidence</h1> <h3>COLLECTOR OF C. EX. Versus OSWAL VANASPATI & GENERAL INDUSTRIES</h3> COLLECTOR OF C. EX. Versus OSWAL VANASPATI & GENERAL INDUSTRIES - 1989 (42) E.L.T. 227 (Tribunal) Issues:- Appeal against the order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi.- Allegation of usage of Sarson oil instead of cotton seed oil in manufacturing vanaspati.- Reliance on additional evidence by the Collector (Appeals) without giving an opportunity to the departmental authorities to make submissions.- Interpretation of Section 35A of the Central Excise Act regarding consideration of additional evidence.Analysis:1. The appeal was filed by the Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh against the order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals), New Delhi. The case involved M/s. Oswal Vanaspati & General Industries, who were alleged to have availed benefits under a specific notification by using indigenous cotton seed oil but were found to have used Sarson oil instead. The Assistant Collector confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 22,774.25 against the respondents after discovering discrepancies in the oil used. However, the Collector (Appeals) considered samples drawn by Central Excise authorities during different stages of manufacturing, which indicated the use of cotton seed oil in vanaspati production.2. The learned SDR argued that the Collector (Appeals) relied on additional evidence without allowing the departmental authorities to respond, contrary to the principles of natural justice. Section 35A of the Central Excise Act was cited to emphasize the necessity of providing an opportunity to contest new evidence. The Tribunal noted that the frequency and procedure of sample testing were not clarified, and the departmental authority was not given a chance to address the new evidence. While Section 35A did not explicitly mandate a hearing for additional evidence, fairness required allowing the other party to challenge it. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the Collector (Appeals) order and remanded the case for fresh consideration, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness and opportunity for submissions.3. The judgment highlighted the significance of procedural fairness and the right to respond to new evidence in adjudicatory proceedings. By remanding the case for de novo consideration, the Tribunal underscored the importance of ensuring both parties have a fair opportunity to present their case and contest any evidence relied upon in the decision-making process. The interpretation of Section 35A in light of principles of natural justice was pivotal in setting aside the previous order and emphasizing the need for a fair and transparent adjudicatory process in matters of excise duty disputes.
TaxTMI 