1986 (12) TMI 236 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta.
2. Compliance with the principles of natural justice during the proceedings.
3. Confirmation of an earlier order that was set aside by the Central Board of Excise and Customs.
4. Proper signing and dating of the order.
5. Conclusion of the hearing before passing the order.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contended that the order passed by the Collector suffered from legal infirmities and was defective. The appellant argued that the order was not proper as it did not follow the principles of natural justice. The Collector had allegedly made up his mind before hearing the appellant, raising concerns about the fairness of the proceedings.

2. The appellant highlighted that the order communicated to them did not bear the signature of the Collector and was attested by the Superintendent without any indication of dates. The appellant argued that the order was passed before the hearing was concluded, indicating a lack of proper procedure and compliance with natural justice.

3. The appellant raised objections to the confirmation of an earlier order by the Collector, which had been set aside by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. The appellant argued that the confirmed order was non-existing and, therefore, the impugned order was improper and liable to be set aside on this ground alone.

4. The department argued that the order was actually passed on 18-10-1982, despite the date mentioned in the copy issued to the appellant. The department presented evidence that the Collector had signed and dated the order on the same day as the hearing, indicating proper procedure in passing the order.

5. The Tribunal observed various defects in the impugned order, including the lack of the Collector's signature, uncertainty about the date of passing the order, and the absence of proper record-keeping. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of granting a fair hearing and passing a legally sound adjudication order. Due to the procedural irregularities and lack of proper documentation, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not valid. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Collector for a fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.