Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 652 - CESTAT AHMEDABADDenial of benefit of exemption notification in respect of the raw material and finished goods in respect of clearance of the goods to the other three EOUs - Entire case was made out on the basis that the word knitted was not mentioned in the invoices - Held that:- The Adjudicating Authority observed that the Superintendent Adjudication (Commissioners Office) was present in the office in the whole week including Saturday and Sunday. We find that the appellant categorically mentioned name of the officers in their letter, which was not considered in the adjudication order. In any event, by letter dtd 24.3.2014 the appellant was directed to collect the relied upon documents and to appear hearing on 31.3.2014. The essence of justice requires that a person who is to decide must give the parties a fair hearing before him enabling them to state their case and view. To put in other words, justice demands that the parties should have an opportunity of submitting to the person by whose decision they are to be bound such considerations as in their judgement ought to be brought before him. So, it is difficult to file the reply after taking copies within the period, as specified in the Notice dtd 24.3.2014. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
|