Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + AT Central Excise - 2002 (9) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2002 (9) TMI 785 - AT - Central Excise
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order by the Commissioner (Appeals) without granting an opportunity of being heard and without issuing a speaking order on the modification application.
In this case, the Adjudicating Authority disallowed Modvat credit to the assessee and imposed a penalty. The assessee appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and filed for pre-deposit and stay of recovery under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) initially granted interim stay directing the deposit of 60% of the dues. Subsequently, the appeal was rejected for non-compliance with Section 35F without granting a hearing on the modification application. The appellants argued a violation of natural justice as they were not heard before the impugned order. The JDR admitted the lack of opportunity for the assessee to be heard. The Tribunal found a clear violation of natural justice as the appellants were not given a chance to be heard before the rejection of the appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) failed to provide a reasoned decision on the modification application, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal by way of remand. The Commissioner was directed to consider the modification application, hear the applicants, and then decide on the appeal in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice. The interim stay order was stayed until the modification application was finally disposed of. This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings, emphasizing the right to be heard before decisions are made. It underscores the necessity for authorities to provide reasoned decisions, especially when rejecting appeals or applications, to ensure transparency and fairness in the adjudicatory process. The ruling serves as a reminder for appellate authorities to conduct proceedings in a manner that upholds procedural fairness and safeguards the rights of the parties involved.
|