1999 (12) TMI 70 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice in not serving replies of respondents 2 and 3 to the petitioners.
2. Allegation of not issuing notice of hearing for subsequent dates when respondents 2 and 3 were heard.
3. Allegation of not hearing the petitioners again when respondents 2 and 3 were heard.
4. Determination of deliberate suppression of fact and wilful misstatement by the petitioners to evade payment of duty.
5. Dismissal of appeal due to non-compliance of interim order.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioners argued that the first respondent violated the principles of natural justice by not serving the replies of respondents 2 and 3. However, the first respondent clarified that he did not rely on the replies but on statements recorded during investigation. Thus, it was held that there was no violation of natural justice.

Issue 2: The petitioners contended that no notice of hearing was issued for subsequent dates when respondents 2 and 3 were heard. Citing legal precedents, it was established that further notice for adjourned dates is unnecessary if the hearing is adjourned without changing any items or procedures. Therefore, no further notice was required in this case.

Issue 3: The petitioners raised concerns about not being heard again when respondents 2 and 3 were heard. The first respondent, however, mentioned that he considered all arguments made on behalf of both parties during the initial hearing. It was concluded that there was no requirement to hear the petitioners again based on the information available.

Issue 4: The first respondent found deliberate suppression of fact and wilful misstatement by the petitioners to evade duty payment. The petitioners falsely claimed exemption under a notification by stating the number of workers employed was less than 10. However, evidence revealed that more than 10 workers were employed, leading to the conclusion that the petitioners intended to evade duty payment.

Issue 5: An appeal was filed against the order, but it was dismissed due to non-compliance with an interim order. As a result, the original order became final, and the court found no grounds to interfere with the writ petition. The writ petition was dismissed, granting three months for payment and closing related applications.