2012 (5) TMI 269 - AT - Central Excise

Natural justice - stay application Held that - appellant sought an adjournment which was considered and the matter was fixed on 28/10/2009 but unfortunately before that date the appellants met with an accident on 18/10/2009 wherein both the legs were fractured and these facts have been communicated to the Commissioner well in advance along with supporting evidence i.e. photographs, medical certificates, etc. and the Commissioner failed to consider the contention of the appellants for adjournment of the case and did not grant any further adjournment in the case. Thereafter, after two months, he passed the adjudication order. If the Commissioner had given an opportunity after two months to the appellants, the appellants could not have pleaded before this bench that no reasonable opportunity was given to the appellants.Therefore, we are of the opinion that principles of natural justice has been violated by the Commissioner while passing the order, matter remanded back to the Commissioner, appeal as well as the stay applications are disposed of

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice; Additional grounds of appeal; Extended period of limitation; Opportunity of being heard; Fresh adjudication after remand.

The judgment involves multiple issues, starting with the violation of principles of natural justice. The appellants filed an appeal claiming they were not given a reasonable opportunity to defend their case, leading to the request for additional grounds of appeal. The appellants argued that the demand made in the show-cause notice was beyond the extended period of limitation, and their production capacity was inaccurately assessed. The Commissioner's handling of the case, including not granting an adjournment after the appellants' accident, raised concerns about the opportunity of being heard.

The judgment delves into the details of the case, where an investigation revealed clandestine removal of dutiable goods by the appellants. Despite multiple hearing dates and requests for adjournment due to unforeseen circumstances, the Commissioner proceeded with the adjudication without considering the appellants' situation adequately. The Judge noted the violation of natural justice principles due to the lack of a fair hearing process, leading to the decision to remand the case for fresh adjudication.

The Judge considered arguments from both sides, emphasizing the importance of adhering to natural justice principles in the adjudication process. The judgment highlighted the sequence of events, including missed hearing dates and the appellants' accident, to support the conclusion of a violation. The decision to remand the case back to the Commissioner for a fair hearing within specific timelines was made to ensure the appellants' rights were upheld.

In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of natural justice violation, extended period of limitation, and the need for a fair opportunity to be heard. By remanding the case for fresh adjudication with clear directions, the Judge aimed to rectify the procedural shortcomings and uphold the appellants' right to a fair hearing. The judgment also waived the requirement of pre-deposit and set a deadline for the appellants to appear, emphasizing the importance of procedural fairness in legal proceedings.