1989 (4) TMI 100 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order passed by Collector of Customs and Central Excise
2. Rejection of stay application by Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal
3. Lack of personal hearing before Tribunal
4. Request for cross-examination of experts
5. Communication gap between offices affecting appearance at Tribunal
6. Setting aside Tribunal's order and directing rehearing of stay application

Analysis:
The petitioners filed an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Rajkot, and also sought a stay on the operation of the said order pending their appeal. The Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal rejected the petitioner's request to exempt them from depositing the duty and penalty amount determined by the Collector. The Tribunal only exempted the petitioners from depositing the penalty amount and directed them to deposit the duty within a specified timeframe. The petition challenged this order of the Tribunal.

The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the hearing for the stay application was scheduled on 5-10-1988, but due to a communication gap between the Junagadh and Bombay offices of the petitioner-company, nobody could attend the hearing before the Tribunal. The petitioners contended that the Tribunal should not have decided the stay application without affording them a personal hearing and that they had repeatedly requested for cross-examination of the experts. The High Court noted that the petitioners had valid reasons for their absence and directed the Tribunal to rehear the application and pass a fresh order.

The High Court refrained from determining whether the petitioners were given a proper opportunity of hearing before the Collector but emphasized that the petitioners had consistently asked for cross-examination of the experts. Considering the contentions raised and the communication gap between offices, the Court found it just to set aside the Tribunal's order and ordered a rehearing of the stay application. The Court directed the Tribunal to inform the petitioners of the new hearing date and instructed the respondents not to resort to coercive methods for recovery until the application is decided.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed a rehearing of the stay application. The Court emphasized the importance of affording the petitioners a fair opportunity to present their case and address the issues raised, including the request for cross-examination of experts.