2013 (6) TMI 267 - AT - Central Excise

Ex-parte order - denial of natural justice - Held that - There has been some apparent error in the name of the party to whom communication for personal hearing was sent and this has resulted in denial of natural justice of giving personal hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for giving personal hearing to the appellant by giving notice at the correct name and address.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
2. Denial of natural justice due to an error in communication for personal hearing.

Condonation of Delay Issue:
The appellant challenged the order passed ex-parte by the Commissioner (Appeals) due to a delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay, stay application, and appeal, citing no justifiable reason for the delay. The appellant then filed a C.M.A before the Madras High Court, which found discrepancies in the communication of the order to the appellant. The High Court held that the Tribunal failed to exercise judicial discretion properly and set aside the order, remitting the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The High Court clarified that the postal cover sent to the wrong party supported the appellant's claim of not receiving the order within the statutory period.

Denial of Natural Justice Issue:
The appellant contended that the denial of personal hearing by the Commissioner (Appeals) was due to an error in communication sent to the wrong party. The Tribunal acknowledged the error and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for providing a personal hearing to the appellant at the correct address. The Tribunal emphasized the appellant's duty to inform about any change in name or address to the Commissioner (Appeals) for proper communication.

In conclusion, the High Court's decision favored the appellant regarding the delay in filing the appeal, highlighting the Tribunal's failure to consider crucial aspects. The Tribunal rectified the error in communication for personal hearing, ensuring the appellant's right to natural justice. The matters of condonation of delay and denial of personal hearing were resolved in favor of the appellant, leading to a remand for fresh consideration by the Tribunal and proper communication with the appellant.