2009 (8) TMI 113 - HC - Central Excise

Violation of Natural justice - stay-cum-waiver application dismissed - Held that - The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the stay-cum-waiver application ex parte without providing any opportunity to the petitioner of hearing and did not take into account the adjournment application filed by the petitioner though admittedly it was received in the office of the respondent-Commissioner (Appeals) on 16-8-04, and this fact appears to have not come to his knowledge on 17-8-04. The aforesaid facts clearly shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) showed undue haste in dismissing the waiver/stay application, which led to the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner. Thus the order dated 27-9-04, 19-8-04 and 14-9-04 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut-II, respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed and the appeal filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1 is restored.

Issues:
1. Quashing of orders by Commissioner (Appeals)
2. Restoration of appeal and stay-cum-waiver application
3. Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance
4. Procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice

Analysis:

Issue 1: Quashing of orders by Commissioner (Appeals)
The writ petitions were filed seeking various reliefs, including quashing of orders dated 27-9-04, 19-8-04, and 14-9-04 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut-II. The petitioners challenged the decisions made on their Modvat credit by the Commissioner (Appeals) and sought judicial intervention to review and annul these orders.

Issue 2: Restoration of appeal and stay-cum-waiver application
The petitioners requested the High Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent to restore the appeal to its original number and decide the stay-cum-waiver application afresh after granting a personal hearing. The Court acknowledged the procedural irregularities in the handling of the application and emphasized the importance of providing a fair opportunity to the petitioner in such matters.

Issue 3: Dismissal of appeal for non-compliance
The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed for non-compliance of the stay order passed under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court noted that the dismissal was a result of the procedural lapses and undue haste exhibited by the Commissioner (Appeals) in handling the case, which ultimately led to the dismissal of the appeal.

Issue 4: Procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice
The Court highlighted the procedural irregularities and violation of principles of natural justice in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s actions. It was observed that the Commissioner decided the stay-cum-waiver application ex parte without providing a proper opportunity for a hearing and failed to consider the adjournment application filed by the petitioner. The Court emphasized the importance of a fair and just approach in such matters to ensure the rule of law and prevent the failure of justice.

In conclusion, the High Court quashed the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and directed the restoration of the appeal filed by the petitioner. The Court instructed the petitioner to file a certified copy of the order within 30 days and mandated the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the stay/waiver application within three months, ensuring a proper opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.

← Previous Next →