ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 2,92,916/- and penalty of Rs. 5,000/-, we take up the appeal itself with the consent of both sides.
2. The Commissioner (Appeals), vide the impugned order has allowed the review application filed by the department, Shri. S.B. Awate, Ld. Consultant appearing for the appellants submit that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) in violation of principles of natural justice, in as much as the only date for personal hearing fixed on 28/11/2003, was sought adjournment on the ground that the appellant’s company Director was busy for a marriage ceremony of his niece. He had made a adjournment request to Commissioner (Appeals) vide his letter dated 27/11/2003, which was faxed to the Commissioner (Appeals)’s office on the same day and also delivered by hand on 28/11/2003. The appellate authority has not considered the request for personal hearing and decided the matter ex-parte.
3. Shri Awate, Ld. Consultant further submits that in the impugned order-in-original the review application was filed before the appellate authority by the Deputy Commissioner, whereas the order in original was passed by the Additional Commissioner. As such the same was not maintainable. In support he relies upon the Tribunal’s decision In the case of Dhampur Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. CCE, Meerut, reported in 1999 (108) ELT 498 (T) as also on the decision in the case of CCE, Nagpur v. Lloyds Metals & Engineering Ltd., and Ors., reported in 2003 (59) RLT 225 (CEGAT-Mum).
4. Shri Pardeshi, Ld. JDR appearing for the revenue submits that the matter be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for decision, in the light of the above decisions of the Tribunal.
5. After considering the submission, we find force in the appellant’s contention that the impugned order has been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) in violation of principles of natural justice in as much as no effective opportunities for personal hearing were granted to the appellants. As such we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for fresh decisions. Needless to say that the appellants would be granted a personal hearing with sufficient advance notice. The Commissioner (Appeals) would also take into consideration, the decisions referred to and relied upon by the Ld. Consultant as referred above.
6. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay petition is also disposed off.
(Dictated in Court)