TMI Blog2016 (5) TMI 512X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellant company is dummy of the noticee company. It was therefore not necessary to hear the appellant separately before taking final decision of appropriation of the duty amount. Held that:- the show cause notice, was issued against the original noticee company and there was neither any proposal against the appellant company nor a copy was served to the appellant. Under the circumstances, by supplying a mere copy thereof, the Department cannot initiate proceedings against the appellant. In any case, it was neither the duty nor the authority of the Tribunal to direct so. If, after the Tribunal found that no order adverse to the appellant company could have been passed without a hearing, the Department was inclined to initiate the procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... serve a show cause notice on another party to whom no such show cause notice was issued therreby expanding the scope of adjudication while remanding an appeal of another appellant? 3. Brief facts are as under:- 3.1 The appellant M/s.Premier Heavy Engineering Corporation (hereinafter to be referred as the appellant company ) has challenged an order dated 29.12.2004 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal ( CESTAT for short), by which the Tribunal directed the excise authorities to serve a copy of show cause notice to the appellant company and further directed that all parties to the proceedings be re-heard by the original authority and thereafter, the issues liability, duty and penalty, etc. may be determi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriated the said sum of ₹ 4,97,348/- towards excise duty liability. Against this order, the appellant approached the Tribunal after unsuccessfully filing appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal by the impugned judgment passed following directions:- 3. In view of the finding we set aside the orders impugned and allow this appeals no.E/527 with direction that M/s Premier Heavy Engineering Corporation should be served with the copy of the notice and all the parties to be re-heard by the original authority and thereafter the issues of liabilities of duty, penalty, interest etc. are to be determined. After such a determination is arrived the question of refund of the amount paid towards duty by M/s.Premier Heavy Engi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tely before taking final decision of appropriation of the duty amount. 6. As can be seen from the record, the question relates to the appellant company being dummy of the noticee company. It is not even the case of the Department that before declaring the appellant company as a dummy, hearing was necessary. Merely because the notice was issued on the so called parent company, requirement of hearing the appellant company would not be done away with. It was on this basis that the Tribunal found that the Department had committed an error and had therefore directed service of copy of the notice to the appellant company. These findings of the Tribunal and the ultimate directions have not been challenged by the Department. The conclusion that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
