2009 (12) TMI 546 - HC - Central Excise

Stay order - natural justice absence of personal hearing - civil right of the petitioner has been affected since a direction has been given to deposit 25% of the total amount of duty confirmed and penalty imposed - the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing order set aside direction to recondider application for stay afresh

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order directing deposit of duty and penalty, Application of principles of natural justice, Opportunity of hearing before adverse order, Compliance with judicial mind requirement, Review of application for stay.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to order directing deposit of duty and penalty:
The petitioner, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, challenged an order directing deposit of 25% of duty confirmed and penalty imposed. The petitioner argued that the order affected civil rights without providing an opportunity of hearing. The court found that the order was passed mechanically without applying judicial mind, thus setting it aside and quashing it.

2. Application of principles of natural justice:
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, particularly the right to be heard before an adverse order is passed. Referring to previous judgments, the court highlighted the audi alteram partem rule, stating that notice and adequate opportunity to present one's case are essential for a fair process. The court noted that compliance with natural justice principles depends on the circumstances of each case, especially when civil rights are involved.

3. Opportunity of hearing before adverse order:
The court observed that the respondent passed the order without dealing with the statements in the application for stay, indicating a lack of application of judicial mind. It reiterated that a party should be given an opportunity of hearing before any adverse order is passed, as required by principles of natural justice.

4. Compliance with judicial mind requirement:
The court found that the respondent did not apply judicial mind while passing the order, leading to a lack of proper consideration of the application for stay. The court emphasized the need for quasi-judicial authorities to apply their judicial mind to the issues involved before making decisions that affect civil rights.

5. Review of application for stay:
The court directed the respondent to reconsider the application for stay by passing a reasoned order after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. This decision aimed to ensure a fair process and compliance with principles of natural justice in reviewing the petitioner's request for stay.

In conclusion, the court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and directing a fresh consideration of the application for stay with the petitioner being granted an opportunity of hearing. No costs were awarded, and all parties were instructed to act on the court's order.