2012 (11) TMI 1110 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved:
The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to challenge an order-in-stay petition and requests the court to quash it as not sustainable in law. The main issue revolves around the denial of a personal hearing to the petitioner and the subsequent disposal of the stay petition without affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

Summary:

Denial of Personal Hearing:
The petitioner had requested for a personal hearing due to their engagement in another matter before the High Court, which was recorded in the impugned order. Despite this, the authority proceeded to dispose of the stay petition without granting the requested personal hearing. The petitioner's plea for adjournment was based on genuine reasons, and there was no history of frequent adjournment requests to avoid hearings. The failure to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner was deemed arbitrary and a violation of the principles of natural justice.

Contradictory Order:
The impugned order was found to be self-contradictory as it acknowledged the request for adjournment in one part but disregarded it in another. This inconsistency further highlighted the unfair treatment towards the petitioner in denying them a fair hearing.

Unnecessary Pre-Deposit:
The authority's decision to order a pre-deposit of 50% of the Cenvat Credit for the purpose of hearing the appeal was deemed unwarranted, especially when the appeal itself could have been taken up on the scheduled date. This direction was considered unnecessary and unjustified.

Remand and Future Proceedings:
The High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the respondent to decide the stay petition or take up the appeal without pre-deposit on a date convenient to the authority. The respondent was directed to ensure a fair hearing for the petitioner without any preconditions. The writ petition was allowed by way of remand, with no costs imposed.

Conclusion:
The judgment focused on the denial of a personal hearing, the contradictory nature of the impugned order, and the unjust pre-deposit requirement. The court emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity of hearing and ensuring procedural fairness in such matters.