1990 (7) TMI 110 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:

1. Failure to provide an opportunity of being heard in stay applications leading to dismissal of appeal.
2. Disposal of stay applications without a hearing by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals).
3. Challenge against the dismissal of one of the appeals due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners raised a grievance that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disposed of their applications for stay of the order passed by the Assistant Collector without granting them an opportunity to be heard. This resulted in the dismissal of the appeal, as they failed to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of the Excise Act. The court acknowledged the importance of the principle of natural justice, emphasizing that no adverse order should be passed without a hearing. The court held that the Collector should have heard the parties before deciding on the stay applications. The failure to do so rendered the orders refusing to waive the pre-deposit and dismissing the appeal unsustainable. The court directed the proceedings to be remitted back to the Collector for proper disposal of the stay applications, ensuring a hearing for the petitioners.

2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise had issued orders confirming the demand amounts, against which the petitioners filed appeals with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and requested a stay on the payment pending the appeal's final disposal. However, the Collector disposed of the stay applications without providing a hearing to the petitioners, leading to the dismissal of one appeal due to non-compliance with Section 35F of the Excise Act. The court found this action to be erroneous and emphasized the need for a fair hearing before deciding on stay applications. Consequently, the court set aside the orders passed by the Collector on the stay applications and remitted the proceedings for fresh disposal with proper consideration of the petitioners' submissions.

3. The court agreed with the petitioners' counsel that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) erred in not granting a hearing before disposing of the stay applications. The court highlighted that the application for stay is an independent proceeding from the appeal itself, and the authority should have heard oral submissions before making a decision. The court deemed the orders refusing to waive the pre-deposit and dismissing the appeal as unsustainable. As a result, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders on the stay applications and the dismissal of the appeal, and directed the Collector to hear the petitioners before making any further decisions.