2013 (7) TMI 922 - HC - Central Excise

Appellate Tribunal should not decide the application in absence of the applicant being the petitioner in the instant case.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders in Central Excise Appeal, Application for interim measure, Dispute over order of attachment, Disposal of application for dispensation of pre-deposit, Application for recalling orders, Entertaining writ petition despite alternative remedy, Tribunal's approach, Direction to Tribunal for disposal of applications, Order of attachment and undue hardship, Safeguarding interest of revenue, Bank Guarantee directive, Restriction on alienating immovable assets, Disposal of writ application, Allegations not deemed admitted, Supply of certified copy.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the challenge to orders passed in Central Excise Appeal, where the petitioner was directed to pay a penalty. The petitioner sought an interim measure to restrain authorities from coercive actions. A dispute arose regarding an order of attachment of movable property. The Tribunal's decision on the application for dispensation of pre-deposit was questioned, as it was passed in absence of the petitioner. The respondents argued for the imposition of 10% penalty as reasonable. The Court emphasized the need for the petitioner's presence during such decisions and directed the Tribunal to reconsider the application for recalling orders promptly.

The Court addressed the issue of entertaining a writ petition despite the availability of alternative remedies, citing a precedent that allows such actions. It criticized the Tribunal's approach of deciding matters in the absence of the applicant. The Court directed the Tribunal to expedite the disposal of the applications for recalling the order and restoring the appeal. Concerning the order of attachment causing undue hardship, the Court directed the petitioner to provide a Bank Guarantee within a week to safeguard the revenue's interest. Additionally, the petitioner was restricted from alienating immovable assets until the pending application was resolved.

The judgment concluded by disposing of the writ application, clarifying that the allegations were not deemed admitted by the respondents. It also directed the urgent supply of a certified copy of the order if requested. The detailed analysis covered various legal aspects, including procedural fairness, safeguarding interests, and the proper exercise of discretion by the Tribunal, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.