ORDER
Jyoti Balasundaram, Member (J)
1. At the outset, learned Counsel for the appellants, Shri Jitendra Singh raises two points:
1. That although the appellants received the notice of hearing for the pre-deposit waiver application filed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act and argued the stay application, the lower appellate authority (whose order is challenged in the present appeal) not only disposed of the stay application, but went on to decide the appeal on merits against the assessees without affording them an opportunity of being heard on the merits of their case.
2. That although in their appeal to the Collector (Appeals), the assessees had raised the plea that the demand was partly barred by limitation, there has been no finding on this aspect in the impugned order, which, therefore, suffers from the vice of being a non-speaking order.
2. Learned DR, Shri Udhoji fairly leaves the matter for decision by the Bench as he is not in a position to controvert the submission regarding violation of principles of natural justice.
3. We have carefully considered the submissions of both sides. A perusal of the impugned order bears out the contention of the assessees that they were heard only on the application filed in terms of Section 35F of the Act and in the absence of any rebuttal by the Revenue on this score, we agree with the learned Counsel that the order has been passed in contravention of the principles of natural justice, which require that a person has a right to be heard before any Order is passed against him. We also find substance in the second plea of the appellants as there is no finding in the impugned order on the contention of partial time barred demand. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter for fresh decision by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), who shall pass fresh orders after extending to the assessees a reasonable and effective opportunity of being heard in their defence.
4. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand.