TMI Blog2015 (3) TMI 1125X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... personal hearing was held. Since there is neither any reference in the impugned Order of any personal hearing being held after issuance of ‘Corrigendum’ nor the department has made any submission in this regard, it is concluded that either no personal hearing was held on 5-3-2014 and even if same was held, the submissions made therein have not been recorded and taken into consideration by the adjudicating authority. In either scenario, the principle of natural justice has been violated by the adjudicating authority as order has been passed without considering defence after issuance of ‘Corrigendum’. In the case of Penguin Electronics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Mumbai-II [2005 (3) TMI 529 - CESTAT, MUMBAI ], the Hon’ble Tribunal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for waiver from pre-deposit, the appellant has stated that the impugned order suffer from serious factual error, invocation of longer period, alteration of charges levelled in the original SCN and subsequent issue of SCN which are not permitted under the law, all the above makes the entire order unwarranted and bad in law; that the appellant is a Govt. of India PSU and never have any intent to evade any duty or defraud Govt. Revenue. 3. The grounds of appeal stated in the appeal memo, submission made on 9-7-2014 and 26-2-2015 are as follows : (i) That the impugned Order passed by the adjudicating authority devoid of justice perverse both on law facts. (ii) That the impugned Order passed by the adjudicating authority is unwa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d excise returns showing the input credit. They placed on the decision delivered in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Ultratech Cement Ltd. [(2010) 1 taxman.com 495], CCE, Vadodra v. Lear Automotive India Ltd. [(2013) 30 taxmann.com 178], Polylink Polymers (P) Ltd. v. CCE (AhmEdabad) [2014 taxman.com 216] and BASF India Ltd. v. CCE, Manglore [2012 (26) taxmn.com 20], Coca Cola India Pvt. Ltd. v. CCE, Pune [2015 (37) S.T.R. 768 (Tri. - Mum.)], CCE v. Monsanto Manufacture (P) Ltd. [2014 (45) GST 699 (All.) = 2014 (36) S.T.R. 177 (All.)]. (x) That as mentioned in the impugned order, the personal hearing was held on 4-12-2013 and that Shri Kamal Khemuka, Advocate appeared for personal hearing on behalf of the party and that he had submitted a writ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 to 03/2013 (amended to April, 2012-March, 2013 vide Corrigendum dated 22-1-2014) 4,72,454/- 8. I find that the issues involved in the aforesaid show cause notice are wrong availment of Cenvat credit of service tax availed on (i) security and cleaning services provided in the Officer s Bangalow and residential colony of staff, (ii) Services rendered by Auditor Company, who audited the books accounts of the appellant company and (iii) Service of insurance premium of vehicles. In the aforesaid show cause notice, the charge of suppression of facts from the department, thereby invoking the larger period of limitation, was alleged. 9. It is observed and so contended by the appellant that the adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d and defence reply/materials considered and thereafter a finding arrived on the issues involved in this case. This appeal is therefore required to be allowed as remand to the Commissioner. 10. I find that in case of Bhushan Steel Ltd. v. CCE, Ghaziabad reported at 2014 (314) E.L.T. 446 (Tri. - Del.), Hon ble CESTAT has rejected the department s appeal against the decision of Commissioner (Appeals) to remand the matter to lower authorities for denial of natural justice. 11. In the case of Raymond Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Raipur [2008 (224) E.L.T. 413 (Tri. - Del.) = 2007 (6) S.T.R. 255 (Tri. - Del.)], the Hon ble CESTAT has held as under : 4. From the above observations, it is clear that when the corrigendum incorpor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
