1997 (9) TMI 121 - HC - Central Excise

Recovery proceedings - Order - Finality of - Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Natural justice

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice by the Appellate Authority.
2. Interpretation of the proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
3. Discretion of the Appellate Authority in granting a personal hearing.
4. Legality of the orders passed by the Appellate Authority.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed writ petitions challenging orders of the Appellate Authority for not providing a hearing before directing pre-deposits. The petitioner argued a violation of natural justice principles. The Counsel contended that the lack of a hearing prejudiced the petitioner, vitiating the orders. The Respondent argued that a personal hearing was not mandatory under Section 35F. The Court considered the Supreme Court's decision in Jesus Sales Corporation case, which held personal hearings not essential for such orders.

2. The Court examined the proviso to Section 35F, noting its similarity to another Act. The Respondent argued that the Appellate Authority could dispense with a hearing at its discretion. The Court highlighted the importance of a fair hearing in such matters. The previous order directed the Appellate Authority to hear and dispose of the applications within a specified time, emphasizing the right to a hearing.

3. The Court analyzed whether the Appellate Authority adequately exercised its discretion in granting a hearing. Notices were issued for a hearing on July 17, but the petitioner claimed not to have received them. The Court found the notices were issued genuinely for a real hearing. The Appellate Authority's decision to dispense with a hearing required substantial reasons, which were not evident in this case.

4. The Court concluded that the orders of the Appellate Authority were legally flawed. It held the orders invalid due to the lack of a proper hearing. The Court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the petitioner's applications after providing a personal hearing. The petitioner was instructed to appear for a hearing, and recovery proceedings were stayed pending the Appellate Authority's decision.