2011 (2) TMI 1002 - AT - Central Excise

Waiver of pre-deposit of duty and equivalent penalty under Rule 9 (2), 173 Q - Held that - As find that the adjudicating authority has not given an effective personal hearing to the appellant - letter written by the appellant on 19.2.2003 asking the adjudicating authority for an adjournment in order to make them an effective representation, has not been considered by the adjudicating authority while passing the impugned Order-in-Origin - Thus, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue after following principles of natural justice.

Summary

Issues:
1. Dismissal of stay petition and appeal due to delay in filing.
2. Waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and penalty.
3. Lack of effective personal hearing by the adjudicating authority.
4. Non-consideration of appellant's request for adjournment.
5. Relevance of Board Circular No. 628/19/2002-CX.

Analysis:

1. The judgment begins by addressing the dismissal of the stay petition and appeal previously filed by the appellant due to a delay in filing. The Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh directed the appellant to pay costs of Rs. 2000 for the appeal to be entertained. Upon compliance with this direction, the earlier orders of dismissal were recalled, and the stay petition and appeal were reinstated for consideration.

2. The appellant filed a stay petition seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duty amount and equivalent penalty. After initial discussions, it was decided that the appeal itself could be disposed of at that stage. The Tribunal then allowed the application for waiver of pre-deposit and proceeded to consider the appeal for final disposal.

3. The Tribunal observed that the adjudicating authority had not provided an effective personal hearing to the appellant. It was highlighted that a letter requesting an adjournment for effective representation had not been considered by the authority while passing the Order-in-Original. Additionally, a Board Circular relevant to the case had not been brought to the authority's attention due to the lack of effective personal hearing. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration following principles of natural justice.

4. The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that the appellant receives a fair hearing and that all relevant information, such as the appellant's request for adjournment and pertinent circulars, is taken into account during the adjudication process. The appellant's counsel committed to cooperating with the adjudicating authority for any future personal hearings as necessary.

5. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed by way of remand, and both the stay application and the appeal were disposed of. The judgment underscored the significance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing parties with a fair opportunity to present their case before reaching a decision.