M\/s Golden Iron & Steel Works Versus CGST, Alwar
Central Excise
2018 (10) TMI 753 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMI
CESTAT NEW DELHI – AT
Dated:- 9-8-2018
Excise Appeal No. 51921 of 2017 – A\/52972\/2018-EX[DB]
Central Excise
MR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL)
\nAppellant: Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Adv.
\nRespondent: Sh. S.K. Bansal, DR
\nORDER
\nPER ANIL CHOUDHARY:
\nThe present appeal is filed by the Appellants against the Order-in-Original No. ALW-EXCUS-000-COM-012-17-18 dated 25.07.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Central Goods & Service Tax, Alwar. The period in dispute is April, 2011 to 24th September, 2013.
\n2. The brief facts of the case are that, during the period under consideration, the Appellants were engaged in the manufacture of MS Ingots etc. falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Act, 1985. The Department searched the factory & residential premises of the partners on 26.09.2013 and certain seizures were made. Accord<\/p>\n
= = = = = = = =<\/p>\n
Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n ted 18.05.2017 for personal hearing fixed for 06.06.2017, 07.06.2017 and 08.06.2017 in a row, but since all the documents were in the possession of the Department and nothing was available with them to rebut the allegations, appearance could not be made. He also submitted that vide letter dated 23.08.2016 the Appellants made a request to the Department to return the documents, but the same was not acceded to. Even the same was not considered at the time of passing the impugned order. Finally, he submitted that the impugned order is bad in law as principle of natural justice was violated and prayed for remand of the matter. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n es we arrive on the conclusion that a reasonable opportunity of hearing was not provided to the appellant before imposing penalty on him and therefore, principle of natural justice has been violated by the adjudicating authority. = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n Plain text (Extract) only<\/strong> = = = = = = = =<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" M\/s Golden Iron & Steel Works Versus CGST, AlwarCentral Excise2018 (10) TMI 753 – CESTAT NEW DELHI – TMICESTAT NEW DELHI – ATDated:- 9-8-2018Excise Appeal No. 51921 of 2017 – A\/52972\/2018-EX[DB]Central ExciseMR. ANIL CHOUDHARY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) And MR. BIJAY KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) Appellant: Sh. Prabhat Kumar, Adv. Respondent: Sh. S.K. Bansal, DR ORDER PER ANIL … Continue reading “M\/s Golden Iron & Steel Works Versus CGST, Alwar”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-14486","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14486","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=14486"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14486\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=14486"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=14486"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/goodsandservicetax.in\/GST\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=14486"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n4. On the other hand, the learned DR for the Department reiterated the findings of the impugned order and submitted that as sufficient opportunity of hearing was granted to the Appellants which they did not avail, so there is no violation of principle of natural justice. Hence, impugned order be upheld.
\n5. After hearing both sides and on perusal of the material ava<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n
\n5.5 In view of the facts and circumstances of the case stated above we set aside the order of imposition of penalty on the appellant with the direction that the ld. Commissioner shall decide the case afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. We also direct that after receipt of this order that the appellant should intimate his address on which personal hearing letters are to be served to him. Consequently the order of imposition of penalty on the appellant is set aside and a fresh order is to be passed by the ld. Commissioner as directed above. It is made clear that this order would have no bearing on the appeals filed by other appellants, if any.”
\n6. By following our earlier decision (supra), we set aside the impugned order<\/p>\n
For full text:-Visit the Source <\/a><\/p>\n