Page 150 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

828 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

lants, who were Export Oriented Units (EOU). This issue has also not been con-
sidered by the Tribunal while making the impugned judgment and order.
7. In this case, the appellants had filed rectification applications, in
which, they had placed reliance on the Ministry’s decisions dated 23-9-2008 and
26-11-2008, which had provided for enhancement of the wastage percentage lim-
its from 9% to 15%. In disposing of the application for rectification, the Tribunal,
by its order dated 7-6-2018 has merely held that since the Ministry’s decisions
were not specifically pointed out by the appellants when the original judgment
and order dated 14-7-2017 was passed, no case was made out for rectification.
8. Taking into considerations the position that, the two main grounds
urged by the appellants were not even adverted to, much less, considered by the
Tribunal, it is only appropriate that the impugned judgment and orders made by
the Tribunal are set aside and the appellant’s appeals are restored before the Tri-
bunal for fresh disposal on their own merits and in accordance with law. On this
occasion, however, the Tribunal will have to address these two main grounds as
also consider the appellant’s contention based upon the Ministry’s decision dated
23-9-2008 and 26-11-2008. We order accordingly.
9. We, however, make it clear that we have not examined the merits of
the rival contentions and, therefore, the Tribunal to examine such rival conten-
tions on their own merits and in accordance with law in pursuance with this re-
mand.
10. The substantial questions of law are disposed of in the aforesaid
terms, without we answering the same ourselves. These appeals are accordingly,
disposed of.
11. The parties to appear before the Tribunal on 16-3-2020 at 10.30 a.m.
and file an authenticated copy of this order, so that, they can receive instructions
as to the further schedule for disposal of the appeals. We request the Tribunal to
dispose of the appeals as expeditiously as possible.
12. All concerned to act on an authenticated copy of this order.

_______

2020 (372) E.L.T. 828 (Bom.)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Nitin Jamdar and M.S. Karnik, JJ.
JAVED SHAIKH @ SAMEER SHAH
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
Writ Petition No. 2498 of 2019, decided on 30-1-2020
Adjudication - Ex parte order - Contention that assessee did not get no-
tice - Department stating that opportunity of personal hearing will be given to
assessee on condition that he will attend hearing before the adjudicating
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  150