TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2009 (5) TMI 725
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ther and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. After hearing the matters for some time, we found that no purpose would be served by merely deciding the stay and misc. applications, and allowing the appeals to remain pending, as in our considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter require reconsideration by the Commissioner of Central Excise and therefore, the impugned orders are required to be set aside and matters remanded for decision afresh. In this view of the matter, we hereby allow the applications and proceed to decide the appeals without insisting for requirement of pre-deposit. 3. In appeal No. 253/09, the appellant challenges the order demanding the duty to the tune of Rs. 33,9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....judication proceedings vests with the Additional Commissioner whereas the proceedings in relation to application for remission vests with the Commissioner and that accordingly the orders have been passed bearing in mind the jurisdiction of each of the authorities. The learned DR however, candidly admitted that the Commissioner could have called for the records from the Additional Commissioner in relation to adjudication proceedings and could have disposed of both the matters by himself. Indeed, it cannot be disputed that the Commissioner ought to have adopted such a procedure in view of specific direction by the Tribunal under order dated 10-5-06 to the effect that both the proceedings should be disposed of simultaneously. 7. In the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....so submitted that no proceeding before the Revenue authorities can be concluded without issuing show cause notice. In that connection, reliance is sought to be placed in decision of Apex Court in the matter of Sahara India (Firm) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 2008 (226) E.L.T. 22 of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Johnson & Johnson Ltd v. Dy. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports [2003 (154) E.L.T. 370] and of the Tribunal in the matter of Jeet Ram Enterprises v. CCE, Delhi-I reported in [2006 (199) E.L.T. 244]. 10. As already observed above, it cannot be disputed that in each and every case, which can ultimately result in an order prejudicial to the interest of a party, then the same should not be passed unless such a par....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s v. Bombay Municipal Corporation [1985 (3) SCC 545]; Menaka Gandhi v. Union of India [AIR 1978 SC 597] and host of other cases on the subject of natural justice, the Apex Court held that "Initially, it was a general view that the rules of natural justice would apply only to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings and not to an administrative action. However, in State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei and others, the distinction between quasi-judicial and administrative decisions was perceptively mitigated and it was held that even an administrative order or decision in matters involving civil consequences, has to be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. Since then the concept of natural justice has made great strides and is invariabl....