2014 (4) TMI 1307 - AT - Customs

Seeking stay of the Order-in-Appeal - Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has passed the order without allowing time to the Department to place evidences - violation of Principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The Department had pleaded violation of natural justice as relevant evidences could not be placed before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal). From the impugned order we find that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has made a specific observation that the Department could not substantiate their claim by producing sufficient evidences. In these circumstances in the interest of justice it is prudent that the case be remitted to the Ld. Commr. (Appeals) for deciding the issue afresh after allowing the Department to furnish evidences in support of their claim. Needless to mention that a reasonable opportunity of hearing be granted to both sides. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) is directed to decide the case on merit within four months from the date of communication of this order - Appeal is allowed by way of Remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issue involved in this case is the application filed by the Revenue seeking stay of the Order-in-Appeal due to alleged violation of natural justice.

Summary:
The Revenue filed an application seeking stay of the Order-in-Appeal, alleging that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) passed the order without allowing time to the Department to present evidences, resulting in a violation of natural justice. The Revenue argued that the order was contrary to specific circulars issued by the Board. On the other hand, the respondent's consultant acknowledged the strength of their case but agreed to remand the matter back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) to consider the issue afresh due to the Department's plea of violation of natural justice. After hearing both sides, it was decided that the appeal could be disposed of at that stage. The Tribunal found that the Department had pleaded violation of natural justice as relevant evidences were not presented before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) had observed that the Department failed to substantiate their claim with sufficient evidences. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the case was remitted back to the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) to decide the issue afresh, allowing the Department to furnish evidences. Both sides were granted a reasonable opportunity to present their case, and a time frame of four months was set for the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) to decide the case on merit. The appeal was allowed by way of remand and disposed of accordingly.