1999 (9) TMI 92 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Show cause notice and reply timeline.
2. Appeal and application for stay and waiver.
3. Interlocutory order and writ petition.
4. Dismissal of appeal without hearing.
5. Commissioner's order on pre-deposit waiver.
6. Quashing of impugned orders and remand for hearing.

1. Show cause notice and reply timeline:
The petitioner received a show cause notice in January 1995 and replied in May 1995. Subsequently, an order was passed against the petitioner in December 1997. The petitioner filed an appeal in March 1998 and also applied for staying the order and waiver of pre-deposit. An interlocutory order rejecting the stay and waiver was made in April 1999, leading to the filing of a writ petition.

2. Appeal and application for stay and waiver:
The petitioner filed an appeal with the Appellate Commissioner of Central Excise seeking a stay and waiver of pre-deposit. However, the appeal was dismissed without a hearing, despite an ad interim stay order issued by the Court. The Court found the Commissioner's order dismissing the appeal to be erroneous and lacking defense.

3. Interlocutory order and writ petition:
The Division Bench granted an ad interim stay order pending the final disposal of the petition. Despite this order, the Appellate Commissioner dismissed the appeal without hearing the petitioner. The Court noted the Commissioner's failure to consider the ad interim order and the necessity of hearing the petitioner before dismissal.

4. Dismissal of appeal without hearing:
The Court reviewed the record and arguments from both sides. The Appellate Commissioner's dismissal of the appeal without acknowledging the ad interim stay order and without hearing the petitioner was deemed indefensible. The Court concluded that the Commissioner's order required interference.

5. Commissioner's order on pre-deposit waiver:
The Court observed that the Commissioner's order on the pre-deposit waiver lacked an exercise of discretion. The Central Excise Act allows for discretion in cases of undue hardship due to deposit requirements. The Court found a lack of discussion on relevant issues in the Commissioner's order, leading to the decision to interfere and quash the order.

6. Quashing of impugned orders and remand for hearing:
The Court quashed the impugned orders of the Commissioner and remanded the appeal for hearing in accordance with the law. The Court emphasized the need for a proper consideration of the appeal on its merits and cooperation from the petitioner. The ruling made the impugned orders null and void, directing a reevaluation of the appeal by the Commissioner.