2002 (2) TMI 423 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Violation of natural justice leading to setting aside the impugned order and remanding the case for fresh decision.

In this case before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi, the primary issue revolved around the violation of natural justice by the adjudicating authority, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the case for a fresh decision. The appellants contended that they were not afforded a proper opportunity to present their defense before the impugned order was passed. The adjudicating authority did not grant an adjournment requested by the appellants on a genuine ground, thereby breaching the rules of natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged that the impugned order was passed without due consideration of the appellants' right to be heard, as highlighted by the Supreme Court's observation in the case of State Bank of India v. Chandra Govindji.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants had requested the supply of relied upon documents, followed by a request for non-relied upon documents to prepare their response to the show cause notice. Despite these requests, the documents were not promptly provided, affecting the appellants' ability to prepare adequately for the hearing. Furthermore, the adjudicating authority failed to consider the genuine reasons presented by the appellants for seeking an adjournment on the hearing date. The Tribunal emphasized that the earlier adjournments granted to the appellants should not have been used as a basis for denying a reasonable adjournment when a genuine difficulty arose for the appellants to appear.

Citing the principles of natural justice and the need for a fair hearing, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was passed in violation of these principles. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and remanded the case back to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The appellants were granted the opportunity for a fair hearing in accordance with the law. As a result, both appeals were allowed by way of remand, ensuring that the appellants receive a fair chance to present their case and defend themselves adequately.