2007 (7) TMI 444 - AT - Central Excise

Adjudication - Natural justice - Adjournment - Multiple dates of hearings - Held that - the above approach of the Commissioner is not in accordance with the right interpretation of the provisions of Section 33A. Giving choice of three dates for personal hearing in one letter and seeking of adjournment by the appellant by one month, would not amount to the fact as the adjournments have been sought three times. As such, we are of the view that the adjudicating authority s approach is not in accordance with the principle of natural justice

Summary

Issues involved:
Violation of principle of natural justice in passing impugned order without effective opportunity of personal hearing and consideration of defence reply.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, involved a case where the appellant contended that the impugned order was passed without granting them a proper opportunity of personal hearing, and their defence reply was not considered due to the factory being closed and the company being a sick unit under BIFR proceedings. The impugned order stated that opportunities for personal hearing were provided on multiple dates, and the appellant had requested an adjournment, citing valid reasons. However, the adjudicating authority incorrectly interpreted the proviso to Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, by considering the appellant's request for adjournment as seeking adjournment three times, leading to a violation of the principle of natural justice.

The Appellate Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority's approach was not in accordance with the right interpretation of the provisions of Section 33A. Merely providing three dates for personal hearing in one letter and the appellant seeking an adjournment for one month did not constitute seeking adjournment three times. Therefore, the impugned orders were set aside, and the appeals were remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellants must be given a reasonable opportunity to present their case, file a reply to the show cause notice within a month, and refrain from seeking unnecessary adjournments. The adjudicating authority was directed to expedite the decision-making process after the appellant's submission of the reply.

In conclusion, all stay petitions were disposed of in the manner outlined in the judgment, ensuring that the appellant's right to a fair hearing and natural justice was upheld. The case serves as an example of the importance of providing parties with adequate opportunities for personal hearing and considering their submissions before making a decision in matters involving legal proceedings.