2007 (2) TMI 227 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order of Settlement Commission based on lack of fair hearing opportunity.

In this judgment by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, the Petitioners challenged an order passed by the Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Customs and Central Excise, Mumbai, on the grounds of not being given a fair hearing opportunity. The Petitioners' Counsel was unavailable on the scheduled date, and only the Director of the Petitioner-Company was present. The Petitioners sought a two-week adjournment, but the Settlement Commission only granted an adjournment until 29th August, 2006, and then proceeded to pass the impugned order. The main contention was that the Petitioners' Counsel should have been allowed to appear for a fair hearing.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents argued that the Commissioner had previously granted four adjournments, and there was no error in passing the order dated 22nd September, 2006. However, considering the complexity of the matter and the interest of justice, the High Court felt that the Petitioners' Counsel should have been given an opportunity to appear before the Settlement Commission. Therefore, the Court quashed and set aside the order dated 22nd September, 2006, solely on the ground of lack of fair hearing opportunity, without delving into the merits of the case, with the condition that the Petitioners pay costs of Rs. 25,000 to the Respondents within two weeks.

The Court also directed that the Petitioners' Counsel should not seek any adjournment before the Settlement Commission in the future. The Settlement Commission was instructed to provide at least two weeks' notice to the Petitioners for the hearing date and to expedite the disposal of the application based on its own merits and in accordance with the law. The rule was made absolute accordingly, emphasizing the importance of fair hearing opportunities and procedural fairness in such matters.