2002 (1) TMI 548 - AT - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Lack of reasonable opportunity of personal hearing.
2. Passing of order without issuing a show cause notice.
3. Violation of principle of natural justice.
4. Compliance with the direction given in the remand order.
5. Consideration of submissions regarding the determination of annual capacity of production.

Analysis:

1. Lack of reasonable opportunity of personal hearing:
The appellant contended that the order was passed without providing a reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing. Despite multiple requests for adjournments due to the Managing Director's accident, the Commissioner proceeded with the order. The Tribunal noted that the notice for the hearing was received late, and the Managing Director's health condition was a valid reason for the adjournments. The Tribunal found that the personal hearing was crucial for effective representation and allowed the appeal for a remand to ensure a fair hearing.

2. Passing of order without issuing a show cause notice:
The appellant argued that the order was passed without issuing a show cause notice, which is a violation of natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the absence of a show cause notice and emphasized the importance of such a notice for the appellants to present their case effectively. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment, the Tribunal decided to remand the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after providing an opportunity for a show cause hearing.

3. Violation of principle of natural justice:
The appellant claimed that the order was passed in violation of the principle of natural justice as no reasonable opportunity for a personal hearing was provided. The Tribunal agreed that the lack of proper notice and the Managing Director's health condition warranted a fair opportunity for the appellants to present their case. The Tribunal emphasized the need for adherence to natural justice principles and ordered a remand for a fresh decision.

4. Compliance with the direction given in the remand order:
The Tribunal referenced a previous remand order by the Tribunal for a different matter involving the same appellants. The Tribunal highlighted that the earlier remand order emphasized the grant of a personal hearing to the appellants for a fair decision. In the current case, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the notice provided for the personal hearing and the health condition of the Managing Director, leading to a decision to remand the matter for compliance with the remand order.

5. Consideration of submissions regarding the determination of annual capacity of production:
The Tribunal considered the submissions regarding the determination of the annual capacity of production, as raised by the appellants. Referring to a Supreme Court judgment involving a similar issue, the Tribunal decided to follow the Supreme Court's direction and remand the matter to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after allowing the appellants an effective opportunity of hearing. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of considering the appellants' submissions on the production capacity issue for a fair resolution.

← Previous Next →