2021 (9) TMI 786

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....en passed in compliance of an earlier order of the Custom Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, dated 7.3.2019 whereby the matter has been remitted to the adjudicating authority to pass a fresh order. Bereft of other details, it has been submitted that the impugned order has been passed in violation of the fundamental principle of natural justice, inasmuch as the adjudicating authority has relied on the report of the Central Revenue Control Laboratory (CRCL in short), dated 3.6.2020/13.7.2020 to reject the petitioner's explanation. That report is with respect to chemical composition of the products "Harvest Plus" and "Cash Plus", dealt with by the petitioner. The report of the CRCL with respect to "Harvest Plus" reads as under:....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd the next date fixed for hearing was 20.10.2020. Thereafter, the impugned order is silent as to the date when the report of CRCL was served on the petitioner. At the same time, it appears, after the hearing concluded on 26.10.2020, the petitioner filed a document referred to as "submission of defence reply". In that, the petitioner raised the following objection: Date:-26/10/2020 To, The Principal Commissioner CGST & Central Excise Gautam Budh Nagar Subject :- Submission of Defense Reply along with document in respect of virtual hearing dt 20-10-2020. In reference to virtual hearing held on 20-10-2020 in respect of following SCN/SOD, Defense Reply Is being submitted. Period....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assed by the Commissioner thereafter on 28.10.2020. Plain perusal of the said order reveals, though the adjudicating authority has referred at length, to the reports of the CRCL dated 3.6.2020/13.7.2020, there is not a whisper of the objection filed by the petitioner to those reports. In view of such status of the order, it also assumes significance that in the present petition on the first date of hearing, the court required the learned counsel for the revenue to confirm whether the complete test report had been made available to the assessee. That query was made in light of the averment made in para 24 of the writ petition wherein it was specifically pleaded that aforesaid reports of the CRCL were confronted to the petitioner on 20.10.....