2011 (4) TMI 924 - AT - Central Excise

Order passed without giving opportunity of being heard - Held that - Appellants were adopting delay tactics but that by itself cannot be said to be justifiable ground to deny the opportunity of being heard in the matter to the appellants. The matter was fixed for hearing on 04.12.2009 and notice in that regard was not received by the appellants well in advance. It was received only on 03.12.2009 & due to restrictions imposed on the movement of the Director of the appellants company, without prior permission of Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut, it was indeed impossible for the appellants to appear before the Commissioner at Meerut on 04.12.2009 in response to the notice - order set aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner, Meerut to give opportunity of being heard to the appellants and then to pass the appropriate order in accordance with provision of law - in favour of assessee

Summary

Issues:
Fair opportunity of being heard denied due to short notice for hearing.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Delhi, addressed the issue of fair opportunity of being heard being denied to the appellants due to short notice for a hearing. The judgment highlighted that the main appellant, M/s Hindustan Mint and Agro Products Pvt. Limited, was not given a fair chance to present their case as the notice for the hearing was received just a day before the scheduled date. The appellants' representative was also restricted from leaving the territorial jurisdiction without prior permission, making it impossible for them to attend the hearing on time. Despite informing the Commissioner about these constraints, the Commissioner proceeded to decide the matter without considering the appellants' situation. The judgment emphasized that while the appellants had been irregular in attending hearings previously, the short notice in this instance was a valid reason for their absence. The Tribunal noted that denying the opportunity to be heard solely based on past irregularities was unjustifiable. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fair hearing in accordance with the law.

The judgment further clarified that setting aside the order against the main appellant would automatically apply to the other appellants involved in the case, as their liabilities were connected to the alleged default of M/s Hindustan Mint and Agro Products Pvt. Limited. The Tribunal directed the appellants to appear before the Commissioner for further proceedings, ensuring that they are given a fair chance to present their case. The department was instructed to issue notices to the appellants for the next hearing date and provide copies of relied-upon documents to the assesses within a specified timeframe. The judgment concluded by allowing the appeals on the grounds of denial of fair opportunity to be heard, without expressing any opinion on the case's merits, and setting the stage for a new hearing where the appellants can present their arguments effectively.