Tata Motors Ltd. vs Commissioner of C. Ex.

Both these appeals are directed against the order dated 9th November, 2009, whereby the appeal filed by the Revenue was allowed and the cross-objection filed by the Respondent was rejected.

Perused impugned order which is cryptic and unreasoned. It makes a reference to the written submissions as cross-objection. In the light of this, we were taken through the written submissions, the copy of which is placed on record; wherein the following three contentions were raised:

(1) The Appellants have failed to take cognizance of the fact that in the instant case the interest was levied by the Dy. Commissioner in Order-in-Original dated 9-5-2008 under the provisions of Rule 8(3) of the said Rules and not under the provisions of Rule 7(4) of the said Rules.

(2) The duty paid by Respondents is immediately available to their other Works/vendors as CENVAT credit - the exercise is revenue neutral - to levy interest in such case will cause undue hardship to the Respondents - No merits in the contention of the Appellants that if no interest is levied, the Assessee would be benefited by delaying the duty payment and still not paying the interest.

(3) Interest under Rule 7(4) is not attracted if differential duty paid before the date of Order passed for finalizing the assessment - decision of CESTAT in Respondent''s own case - The contention of the Appellants that they have filed appeal and therefore this decision should not have been followed is not sustainable.

None of the above contentions appear to have been considered by the Tribunal. There is no threadbare discussion vis-a-vis above three contentions raised. The Tribunal may have been justified in refusing to grant adjournment. Tribunal is not bound to adjourn the case merely because the adjournment is sought. Similarly, the Tribunal is not bound to transfer the case to the Division Bench merely because there was a request made in that behalf. But, surely, the Tribunal was bound to consider and appreciate the written submissions which were filed on record. The written submissions were not such which one could brush aside without application of mind. The impugned order does not disclose any application of mind or consideration to the contentions raised. In the circumstances, left with no other alternative, we hold that the impugned order is in breach of principles of natural justice as such bad in law.

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh on its own merits keeping all rival contentions open with no order as to costs.