2011 (4) TMI 233 - AT - Customs

Principles of natural justice - Personal hearing was re-fixed for the 3rd time on 25.6.09 for which intimation was issued on 2.6.09. Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate vide his letter received by fax on 21.6.09 requested for further adjournment - the Commissioner(Appeals) has not granted adjournment of hearing fixed on 25.6.09 on the ground that he is not satisfied with the vague reasons forwarded by advocate - Held that - really fail to understand if the above reasons given by the advocate are not sufficient reasons, what could be a better ground for seeking adjournment than the one advanced by the advocate - Further note that the hearing was fixed on25.6.09 which was sought to be adjourned by advocate to 15.7.09 - The Commissioner(Appeals) has passed the impugned order on 13.10.09 - Cannot appreciate the fact of non-granting another date of hearing on 15.7.09 as requested by the advocate, especially when the order stand passed by the Commissioner after a period of more than 3-4 months from the last date of hearing - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in passing the impugned order due to denial of adjournment requests by the appellant's advocate.

Analysis:
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Ahmedabad, in the case at hand, found that the impugned order was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The Commissioner(Appeals) had fixed multiple personal hearing dates, but the appellant failed to attend, leading to the decision being made based on available records. The advocate for the appellant sought adjournment due to a prior commitment at CESTAT Mumbai, but the request was denied by the Commissioner(Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the reasons provided by the advocate were valid, and the denial of adjournment was unjustified, especially considering the significant delay in passing the order after the last scheduled hearing date.

The Tribunal emphasized the importance of affording an effective opportunity for personal hearing to the appellant and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded back to the Commissioner(Appeals) for a fresh decision, with a directive to ensure a fair chance for the appellant to present their case. It was explicitly stated that unnecessary adjournments would not be entertained in the future. Consequently, both the stay petition and the appeal were disposed of in the manner outlined above.

This judgment underscores the fundamental principle of natural justice, highlighting the necessity of providing parties with a reasonable opportunity to present their case. The Tribunal's decision to remand the matter for a fresh decision exemplifies the commitment to upholding procedural fairness and ensuring that all parties are given a fair hearing.