TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 788
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... hearing the counsel of the appellant company and thereby violating the principles of natural justice? 2. Whether the Tribunal had erred in not following its own earlier decision in the case of M/s. Nebulae Healthcare Ltd. Vs. Commissioner [2007 (209) ELT 125 (Tri.Chennai)] and also the decision of the co-ordinate Bench at Delhi in the case of M/s. Cure Quick Remedies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Panchkula [2010 (255) ELT 249 (Tri-Delhi)] particularly when the hearing of the appeal was repeatedly adjourned due to the pendency of the Department's appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Commissioner Vs. Nebulae Healthcare Ltd. [2008 (221) ELT A82 (SC)]?" 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: Th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dingly, appeal was filed by the Department before the Commissioner (Appeals), who after following the ratio laid down by the Five Member Bench of the Tribunal, dismissed the appeal holding as follows: "I find that the Board's circular and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Kamani Foods were anterior to the decision of the Supreme Court upholding the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Faridabad Tools Pvt. Ltd. I also find that a Five Member Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Franco Italian Co. Pvt. Ltd. held that: "Insofar as the availing of Modvat credits and the full exemption under small scale exemption Notification on different specified goods is concerned, the matter is already covered by the Tribunal's decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filing an appeal in the year 2003. Before the Tribunal, the matter was adjourned from time to time for various reasons, the details of which are extracted below: Date of hearing Order 20.7.2009 Adjourned to 08.10.09. Issue notice 08.10.2009 No Bench Sitting Adjourned To 9.12.09. Issue notice. 9.12.2009 Adjourned to 9.2.10. 9.02.2010 No Bench Sitting Adjourned to 7.4.10 7.4.10 Adjourned to 4.5.10 at the request of the counsel 4.5.10 Adjourned to 24.8.10 to await Apex Court decision in Nebulae Health Care. 24.8.10 Adjd. To 19.10.10 at the request of the counsel 19.10.10 No Bench Sitting Adjourned to 11.1.11. Issue notice 11.1.11 Adjd. To 8.6.11 to await Apex Court decision in Nebulae Health Care 8.6.11 No DB Sitting on 8....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eme. Hence, consequently, the demand of duty raised in the Show Cause Notice to the extent of Rs. 7,02,609/- is confirmed along with interest as payable under the law. However, considering the disputed nature of the issue, it is ordered that no penalty be imposed on the respondent-assessee." 5. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant/assessee is before this Court raising the above-mentioned substantial questions of law. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the Tribunal had not given an opportunity of hearing to address the case, which caused great prejudice to the assessee. He further submits that the date on which the Tribunal passed the final order, i.e., on 30.1.2012, the learned counsel on rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....bunal to the assessee to address the case and therefore great prejudice is caused. We find from the copy of the note sheet pertaining to this case before the Tribunal that the case was adjourned from time to time awaiting the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nebulae Health Care. But we find from the impugned order that the Tribunal, on merits, proceeded to dispose of the matter based on other decisions in the case of CCE, Admedabad Vs. Ramesh Food Products reported in 2004 (174) ELT 310 (S.C) and in the case of Collector Vs. Universal Drinks Pvt. Ltd. reported in 2007 (217) ELT A76 (S.C.). There is no reference to the decision in the case of Nebulae Health Care. Even otherwise, the Tribunal does not consider the decisions of the Su....