1987 (2) TMI 256 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Appeals filed without affixing requisite Court Fees Stamp
- Non-observance of principles of natural justice
- Dismissal of appeals on technical grounds
- Power of Collector to allow payment of Court Fees at any stage
- Curability of infirmity regarding Court Fees Stamp

Analysis:
The appeals in this case arose from a common Order-in-Appeal rejecting four appeals filed by the appellants on the ground of not affixing the requisite Court Fees Stamp. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing hand-made Biris, had filed refund applications, which were rejected by the Assistant Collector, leading to the appeals before the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals). The appellants argued that the impugned order lacked natural justice as they were not given an opportunity to rectify the Court Fees Stamp issue. They contended that the Collector should have considered the appeals on merits and highlighted a letter indicating their willingness to pay the Court Fees if directed. However, the Collector dismissed the appeals solely based on the absence of Court Fees Stamp, without addressing the request made by the appellants.

The Tribunal noted that while the impugned order did not discuss the appellants' letter offering to affix the Court Fees Stamp, the Collector's decision to reject the appeals outright without providing an opportunity to rectify the deficiency was not in line with principles of natural justice. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural justice requires allowing the appellants to cure the deficiency in the Court Fees Stamp, rather than outright rejection. Drawing a parallel with civil courts, where deficiencies in stamping are curable, the Tribunal highlighted the absence of such provisions in the Central Excises and Salt Act, but stressed that substantial justice should not be sacrificed for procedural technicalities.

In the absence of an express provision in the Central Excises and Salt Act regarding Court Fees on appeal memorandums, the Tribunal held that the Collector had the discretion to permit the appellants to pay the requisite Court Fees at any stage of the proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the infirmity regarding the Court Fees Stamp was curable, and the Collector should have allowed the appellants to rectify the deficiency before dismissing the appeals. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Collector to decide the appeals on merits after providing the appellants with an opportunity to pay the requisite Court Fees.

In summary, the Tribunal's decision focused on the importance of procedural justice, the curability of deficiencies in Court Fees Stamp, and the Collector's discretion to allow payment of Court Fees at any stage to ensure substantial justice is not compromised by technicalities.