2005 (12) TMI 44 - HC - Central Excise

When Jt. Comm. or adjudicating authority is holding additional charge on date of hearing then order taken on that date would be said taken on basis of ineffective hearing violation of natural justice matter remanded each officer is directed to pay cost at Rs. 1000 to petitioners

Summary

Issues:
1. Lack of effective hearing due to Joint Commissioner holding additional charge.
2. Quashing of Order-in-Original dated 20th July, 2005.
3. Remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision.
4. Granting proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Analysis:
The High Court of Ahmedabad, comprising D.A. Mehta and H.N. Devani, JJ., heard the case where the petitioner's advocate argued that the Order-in-Original dated 20th July, 2005, was made without granting a proper opportunity of hearing. It was contended that on the day of the hearing, the Joint Commissioner holding additional charge resulted in no effective hearing taking place. The respondent's counsel, Mr. Malkan, conceded to the uncontroverted statements made by the petitioner and requested the impugned order to be quashed and set aside, remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision.

The Court, in light of the statements made, quashed and set aside the Order-in-Original dated 20th July, 2005. The matter was restored to the file of the adjudicating authority with a direction to grant a proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before framing a fresh order in accordance with the law. Consequently, the rule was made absolute, and the petition was allowed.

Moreover, the Joint Commissioners, Mr. M.R.R. Reddy and Mr. Sanjay Rathi, filed affidavits without specifically addressing the issues raised in the Court's order. As a result, each officer was directed to pay costs quantified at Rs.1,000/- per head to the petitioner. The respondent authority was instructed to pay the costs to the petitioner within a fortnight and recover the same from each officer personally. This judgment highlights the importance of ensuring a fair opportunity of hearing in adjudicative proceedings and the consequences of not adhering to procedural fairness in administrative decisions.