9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashing and setting aside Stay Order No. 391 of 1999 and Stay Order No. 392 of 1999 dated 18th March 1999. Comprehensive Analysis: The petitioner, a public limited company engaged in manufacturing plain paper copiers, challenged the orders passed by the appellate authority regarding excise duty demands. The appellate authority upheld the duty demand based on Section 4(1)(a)(iii) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, stating that the goods were sold through a related person, justifying the duty payment. The petitioner argued non-application of mind by the appellate authority and cited relevant cases where personal hearing was deemed necessary. The High Court noted that while personal hearing is not mandatory, it may be appropriate in certain circumstances. The Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the stay application and pass a reasoned order, emphasizing the consideration of relevant legal positions and the petitioner's submissions. The High Court acknowledged the settled legal position that personal hearing is not obligatory but may be considered by the appellate authority. The Court highlighted that the authority should not mechanically pass orders and should evaluate the need for personal hearing based on the specific case circumstances. While upholding the legal principle that personal hearing is not mandatory, the Court emphasized that the authority should carefully assess the situation and make a decision accordingly. The High Court allowed the petition, directing the appellate authority to review the matter in compliance with the law. The Court also ordered that no coercive recovery should be made against the petitioner until the stay application is reevaluated, without imposing any costs in this case.
|
