2019 (8) TMI 964 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - impugned orders admittedly passed without hearing the petitioner - HELD THAT - Both the impugned orders have been passed in the absence of the petitioner. This non-representation of the petitioner undisputedly was because notice of hearing issued by the registry of the Tribunal was sent to the old address and not the correct address. Thus, the petitioner had no notice of the fact that the Revenue s appeal was scheduled for hearing on 18 November 2016. The notice of the hearing was not served at the existing address of the petitioner by the Registry leading to order dated 25 May 20188 without hearing the petitioner. Thus both the impugned orders are in breach of principles of natural justice. The process of taking decisions having civil consequences include in it certain requirements such as an opportunity to party to put up its case. This is absent in respect of both the orders. Therefore we exercise our extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution by not relegating the petitioner, in the peculiar facts of this case, to the remedy of appeal provided under the Act. Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to orders passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal without hearing the petitioner.

Analysis:
The petition under Article 226 challenges the orders passed by the Tribunal without the petitioner being heard. The impugned orders allowed the Revenue's appeal and rejected the petitioner's application for recall/rectification without providing an opportunity for the petitioner to present its case. The petitioner was unrepresented as the notice of hearing was sent to the old address, leading to the orders being passed in absence of the petitioner.

The petitioner's grievance was that it had no notice of the hearing granted by the Tribunal before the final order was passed. The petitioner learned about the order only when a recovery notice was served at its new address. The application for recall/rectification highlighted that no notice of hearing was received by the petitioner due to the notice being sent to the old address. The Tribunal dismissed the application without hearing the petitioner, citing that the original order was passed on merits.

Both impugned orders were passed in the absence of the petitioner due to incorrect notice service by the Tribunal. The Court found that the orders were in breach of principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not given an opportunity to present its case. The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 and set aside the impugned orders, directing the Tribunal to hear the appeal after ensuring proper notice and representation.

In conclusion, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Tribunal's orders and directing a hearing after ensuring proper notice to the parties. The decision emphasized the importance of principles of natural justice and providing an opportunity for parties to present their case before making decisions with civil consequences.