2026 (8) TMI 1156

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ms Appeal No. C/86308/2024. By the impugned Order, the Appeal filed by the Respondent was allowed by the CESTAT on the ground that there was an inordinate delay between the Show Cause Notice and the Inquiry Report, and that the Inquiry Officer and the Investigating Officer was one and the same, which caused grave prejudice to the Respondent. 2. According to the Revenue, the above Appeal gives rise to the following three questions of law: "A. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal erred in setting aside the Order-in- Original (O-I-O) by basing its decision on erroneous factual assumptions that there was a delay of more than nine months between the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and the Enquiry Repor....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....n up for hearing and final disposal. 4. We find from the impugned Order that it has proceeded on a factually wrong premise that the Show Cause Notice is dated 13th March 2023 and the Inquiry was completed on 26th December 2023. In fact, from the record, we find that the Show Cause Notice is dated 3rd October 2023 and the Inquiry proceedings commenced immediately thereafter and the Inquiry Report was submitted on 26th December 2023. We, therefore, find that there was no question of any inordinate delay which would have caused prejudice to the Respondent. 5. Further, we find that even the observation made in paragraph 5 of the impugned Order that the Inquiring authority appointed by the Licensing authority was none other than the offici....