1986 (11) TMI 184 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Appeal against ex parte order for confiscation of goods, redemption fine, duty demand, and personal penalty.

The judgment pertains to an appeal against an ex parte order issued by the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, confiscating seized goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine, demanding duty on reels, and imposing a personal penalty. The appellants were served a show cause notice, and despite seeking adjournments to access relevant records due to a factory lockout, the Adjudicating Authority proceeded ex parte and passed the impugned order. The appellants argued that they were not given an effective opportunity to defend themselves, citing the fundamental principle of natural justice. The Adjudicating Authority refused adjournment requests, leading to the ex parte decision. The appellants contended that the denial of adjournment violated the principle of audi alteram partem. The learned counsel for the appellants referenced the decision in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India to support their argument for a fair opportunity to defend. The Adjudicating Authority's refusal to consider the relevance of the records requested by the appellants was highlighted as a procedural flaw.

The Member (J) analyzed the arguments and concluded that the adjournment requests made by the appellants were genuine, aimed at accessing necessary records to present a defense. The Adjudicating Authority's decision to proceed with a personal hearing without considering the importance of the records for the case was deemed a violation of natural justice principles. The judgment emphasized that an effective opportunity to defend is a fundamental aspect of fair proceedings, as established in legal precedents. Consequently, the ex parte order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, ensuring the appellants are provided with a proper opportunity to defend themselves. The judgment did not require a separate order on the Cross-Objections filed by the department, as the case was remanded, encompassing all aspects of the appeal.