2016 (5) TMI 1201 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of order passed by the Settlement Commission - Violation of principles of natural justice - Calculation filed at the back of the petitioner and no opportunity granted to the petitioner to explain the same - Held that - by considering the fact that no opportunity has been granted to the petitioner and therefore, the prayer is allowed the Settlement Commission is directed to consider the additional submissions of the petitioner filed on 22.12.2014 and after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, pass an appropriate order within a period of two months from the date of filing of certified copy of the order. - Petition disposed of

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order of Settlement Commission without granting opportunity of hearing to petitioner.

The petitioner challenged an order passed by the Settlement Commission without granting an opportunity of hearing, as required under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the calculation submitted by the respondents was done without the petitioner's knowledge, and additional submissions were filed by the petitioner to explain the situation. The counsel relied on a Supreme Court decision emphasizing that technicalities should not hinder the delivery of complete justice. The Court noted that no opportunity had been provided to the petitioner before passing the impugned order. Therefore, the Court directed the Settlement Commission to consider the additional submissions of the petitioner, grant a hearing, and issue a new order within two months. The Court clarified that its decision did not reflect any opinion on the case's merits, keeping the initial order in abeyance until the new decision is made.

In this case, the main issue revolved around the Settlement Commission passing an order without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. The petitioner's counsel argued that the calculation submitted by the respondents was done behind the petitioner's back, leading to the filing of additional submissions by the petitioner to clarify the matter. The counsel cited a relevant Supreme Court judgment that emphasized the importance of not letting technicalities obstruct the delivery of complete justice to a litigant. The Court acknowledged the lack of opportunity granted to the petitioner before the impugned order was issued. Consequently, the Court directed the Settlement Commission to review the petitioner's additional submissions, provide a hearing, and issue a new order within two months. It was explicitly stated that the Court's decision did not indicate any stance on the case's merits, and the initial order was to be put on hold until the revised decision was made.