1990 (7) TMI 116 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of stay applications without giving the petitioners an opportunity to be heard.
2. Failure to comply with the provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Dismissal of appeal due to non-deposit of confirmed amount by the Assistant Collector.
4. Challenge against the order declining stay and dismissal of one of the appeals.

Analysis:

1. The petitioners raised concerns about the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) disposing of their stay applications without granting them a hearing, violating the principle of natural justice. The court acknowledged the importance of giving parties a fair opportunity to present their case before making any adverse decisions. It was noted that the Collector should have followed the established practice of hearing parties before deciding on stay applications. The court emphasized that the application for stay is an independent proceeding and should be treated as such. The judgment highlighted the necessity for the Collector to hear oral submissions before making any decisions on stay applications.

2. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise had issued orders confirming demand amounts against the petitioners, who then appealed to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) and filed applications for stay of the orders pending appeal. The petitioners argued that they had a strong case on merits and requested a stay on the payment of the demanded amounts during the appeal process. However, the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) dismissed the stay applications without providing the petitioners with a hearing. This led to the dismissal of one of the appeals due to the petitioners' failure to deposit the confirmed amount as required by Section 35F of the Excise Act.

3. The court agreed with the petitioners' contention that the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) erred in not granting them a hearing before disposing of the stay applications. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and giving parties a fair chance to present their case. It was deemed improper for the authority to pass adverse orders without hearing the concerned parties. The court held that the orders refusing to waive the pre-deposit required under Section 35F and dismissing one of the appeals were not sustainable. Consequently, the proceedings were remitted back to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) with directions to hear the petitioners regarding the stay applications and make appropriate decisions.

4. In conclusion, the court allowed the petition, setting aside the orders passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) on the stay applications and the dismissal of the appeal. The judgment directed the Collector to reexamine the stay applications with proper consideration of the petitioners' submissions. No costs were awarded in this matter.