ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After dispensing with the condition of pre-deposit of duty, we proceed to dispose of the appeal itself with the consent of both sides, as the issue lies in a narrow compass, It is seen that the demand of duty was dropped by the Assistant Commissioner in original adjudication proceedings. The revenue filed an appeal against the order before the Commissioner (Appeals), who reversed the order of the original adjudicating authority. The appellant’s grievance is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has fixed only one date of hearing for which no notice was received by them on account of their factory having been closed and as such, no appearance could be caused before the appellate authority.
2. Ld. Advocate also submits that they are not aware of passing of the order-in-original by the adjudicating authority for the same reason. As seen from para 7 of the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, he submits, that the appellate authority has agreed with him in principle that the ratio of Supreme Court’s decision in Ujagar Prints is to be adopted for the purpose of valuation of the goods but distinguishes the same on sole ground that the appellants before the Supreme Court were engaged in the job work and the appellants before him is using the goods for captive consumption. The submission of the Ld. Advocate is that above distinction is not justified.
3. We have heard Shri Sanjay Singhal, Ld. JDR for the revenue, who strongly contends the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly held that the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme, Court decision in the case of Ujjagar Prints is not applicable in as much as there are no job charges received by the appellant from outside parties, which might include his profit margin. In case of captive consumptive goods, the criteria for arriving at the assessable value is different.
4. We are of the view that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as the effective opportunity was not granted to the appellant to represent their case before the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the mailer to the appellate authority for fresh decision without expressing our views on the merits of the case. Needless to say that the applicant would be given an opportunity to present their case. We also grant liberty to the appellants to collect all the relevant papers from the office of the Commissioner (Appeals).
5. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand and stay petition is also disposed off.
(Dictated in Court)