1996 (9) TMI 138 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the first respondent rejecting the petitioner's appeal.
2. Compliance with the legal requirements for communication of the appellate order.
3. Proper application of law and procedure under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a Public Limited Company, sought relief against the order passed by the first respondent confirming the findings of the second respondent and directing the petitioner to deposit the due demanded. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was unsustainable as it lacked reasoning and failed to apply the tests laid down by the Supreme Court for granting interim relief. The court noted that the impugned order did not provide reasons for denying the petitioner's benefit under Section 35F of the Act, rendering it unsustainable in law. The court emphasized the necessity of a speaking order with proper justification as per legal requirements.

2. The court observed a procedural flaw in the communication of the impugned order to the petitioner. While the order was conveyed via telegram, the original signed order was not sent to the petitioner as required by Section 11(1)(a) of the Act. The mode of service prescribed under Section 37C was not followed, which mandated the delivery of decisions or orders by registered post with acknowledgment due. This non-compliance with the statutory procedure raised concerns regarding the validity of the communication of the order to the petitioner.

3. In setting aside the impugned order, the court directed the first respondent to provide a notice of personal hearing to the petitioner and dispose of the appeal filed under Section 35F of the Act within two months in accordance with the law. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to legal procedures and ensuring a fair and reasoned decision-making process. The judgment underscored the significance of a valid and properly communicated order, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in administrative decisions.