2010 (5) TMI 39 - HC - Central Excise

Personal hearing - According to Mr Naveen Malhotra, he attended the proceedings on one date but he does not recall on which date he signed the said record of personal hearing. However, he is certain that he did not sign it on 29.09.2006. We are also of the view that when several dates are mentioned, then it cannot be taken that when a person has signed once it would relate to all the dates. The logic is very clear. If on 08.03.2006, which is the first date mentioned therein, the signature of Mr Naveen Malhotra was taken, then obviously no signatures were taken on the other dates mentioned in the record of personal hearing. And, if we assume that the signature was not taken on 08.03.2006, which is the first date of hearing, then the document itself becomes very doubtful. Therefore, we cannot place any reliance on the said document which purports to be a record of personal hearing. Consequently, we are left with only the affidavit which has been filed by Mr Naveen Malhotra indicating that no personal hearing as such was granted to him and no oral submissions were made by him before the said Joint Secretary nor were any written submissions filed by him. matter remanded

Summary

Issues:
1. Opportunity of hearing not granted to the petitioner before the order in revision was passed.
2. Lack of credibility in the record of personal hearing submitted.
3. Remittal of the matter for fresh adjudication after granting a proper opportunity of hearing.

Analysis:
The judgment addresses the grievance of the petitioner regarding the lack of opportunity to be heard before the order in revision was passed by the Joint Secretary. The petitioner, represented by Mr Naveen Malhotra, contended that no written or oral submissions were made before the Joint Secretary, contradicting the statement in the impugned order. The Court found discrepancies in the record of personal hearing, casting doubt on its reliability. Consequently, the Court concluded that the petitioner was indeed not granted a fair hearing, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order.

The Court decided to remit the matter to the revisional authority for fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of granting the petitioner an opportunity of hearing. To ensure transparency and proper documentation of the proceedings, the Court directed the petitioner or their authorized representative to appear before the revisional authority on a specified date. Additionally, the revisional authority was instructed to maintain a record of the personal hearing on each date and obtain signatures of the attendees for verification purposes.

In conclusion, the writ petition was allowed to the extent of granting a fresh opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and setting aside the impugned order. The judgment highlights the fundamental principle of natural justice, emphasizing the right to be heard before a decision is made. The directive for proper documentation and verification of personal hearings aims to uphold transparency and fairness in the adjudicatory process.