2013 (4) TMI 531 - HC - Central Excise

Stay of recovery of the dues seeked - Writ jurisdiction - petitioners contested that in the proceedings before the Tribunal submissions were made only in the stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit of duties, interests and penalties & no indication was furnished by the Tribunal at the stage of the hearing that the appeals would be taken up for hearing and final disposal and that it was inclined to grant a waiver of pre-deposit - Held that - Order of Tribunal was breach of principles of natural justice as Tribunal has itself observed in Paragraph 8 of its order that while allowing the said petition, it was of the view that the appeal could be disposed of at that stage. If the Tribunal was inclined to dispose of the appeal, parties ought to have been placed on notice of this in order to enable them to make submissions on the merits of the appeals. That evidently has not been done. The impugned order of the Tribunal therefore suffers from a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice. As during the course of the hearing, in response to a query of the Court, Counsel appearing on behalf on the petitioners fairly stated that he would have no objection if the order of the Tribunal is set aside in its entirety and the proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. Accordingly the impugned decision of the Tribunal purely on the ground that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice set aside and restore both the stay application and the appeals to the file of the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues:
1. Breach of principles of natural justice by the Tribunal in disposing of the appeals without giving an opportunity for submissions on merits.
2. Maintainability of the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution due to the availability of an alternate remedy of an appeal against the Tribunal's decision.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Breach of principles of natural justice
The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's decision to dispose of the appeals without providing an opportunity for submissions on the merits. The petitioners contended that they were only heard on the stay application seeking waiver of pre-deposit, and the Tribunal did not indicate that the appeals themselves would be taken up for hearing and final disposal. The High Court noted that the Tribunal admitted to hearing only the stay applications and not the appeals themselves. The Court emphasized that the principles of natural justice require parties to be notified if the Tribunal intends to dispose of the appeal, allowing them to make submissions on the merits. As this essential procedural step was not followed, the Court found a fundamental breach of natural justice in the Tribunal's decision.

Issue 2: Maintainability of the petition under Article 226
The Revenue raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the petition under Article 226, arguing that an appeal was available against the Tribunal's decision. The High Court acknowledged the general rule that when an alternative remedy exists, the High Court may not entertain a petition. However, exceptions to this rule include cases involving fundamental rights enforcement, failure of natural justice principles, or jurisdictional issues. In this case, the Court found that the Tribunal's failure to notify the parties about the disposal of the appeals constituted a breach of natural justice, falling within the exception to the alternate remedy rule. Therefore, the Court exercised its discretion under Article 226 and entertained the petition.

In conclusion, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's decision due to the breach of natural justice and restored both the stay application and the appeals to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Court emphasized the importance of following natural justice principles in administrative proceedings and highlighted the significance of providing parties with an opportunity to present their case fully before a final decision is made.