2012 (5) TMI 595 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are related to the rejection of the petitioner's application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 without affording any opportunity of hearing, the subsequent directions given by the Division Bench of the High Court, and the implications of not providing a hearing to the petitioner in matters concerning pre-deposit conditions.

Summary:

Issue 1: Rejection of application without opportunity of hearing
The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the petitioner's application under Section 35F without a hearing, leading to a writ petition being filed. The Division Bench directed the Commissioner to pass a fresh order after giving the petitioner a hearing. The subsequent order by the appellate authority denied the petitioner's request for dispensing with the pre-deposit condition, indicating a change in view. The court observed that not hearing the petitioner earlier may have caused loss to the revenue.

Issue 2: Implications of not providing a hearing
The appellate authority justified its decision not to provide a hearing based on a previous judgment, which the petitioner claimed was not cited during the proceedings. The petitioner argued that had the judgment been brought to their notice, they could have presented different interpretations given by various High Courts. The court scheduled the matter for final disposal and stayed the operation of the impugned order until the next hearing date.

The judgment highlights the importance of affording a fair hearing to parties involved in legal proceedings, especially in matters concerning pre-deposit conditions under the Central Excise Act. It also underscores the significance of citing relevant judgments during arguments to ensure a comprehensive and informed decision-making process.