1989 (1) TMI 286 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Unilateral demands without show cause notice, Appellate Collector's dismissal of appeal, Vigilance in exercising the right of appeal, Validity of demands, Principles of natural justice, Time limit for filing appeal, Tribunal's authority to set aside orders, Compliance with Central Excise Law.

Analysis:
The case involves the Superintendent of Central Excise making demands on monthly RT 12 Returns without issuing show cause notices or granting a hearing to the appellants. The demands, totaling Rs. 4,93,480.68, were communicated without proper procedure. The appellants appealed to the Appellate Collector, who dismissed the appeal as a nullity since it was against a reminder, not the original demands. The appellants sought to set aside the demands due to lack of hearings. The department argued that even if the demands were void, timely appeals were necessary to challenge them.

The Tribunal found that while the demands were procedurally flawed, they were orders made by a competent authority and needed to be challenged within the statutory appeal period. The appellants' failure to appeal resulted in the demands becoming final. The reminder from the Superintendent did not create a new right of appeal. The Tribunal, bound by the law, dismissed the appeal due to the appellants' lack of diligence in exercising their appeal rights.

However, a dissenting opinion by another Member highlighted that void orders, like the demands in this case, do not legally exist and cannot be appealed against. Quoting previous judgments, the dissenting Member emphasized the importance of natural justice and the invalidity of orders made without proper procedures. It was concluded that the impugned order should be set aside, and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication in line with natural justice principles.

The Tribunal's final order, based on the majority decision, dismissed the appeal. The differing views within the Tribunal centered on the nature of the demands, the necessity of timely appeals, adherence to natural justice principles, and the Tribunal's authority to set aside orders. The case underscores the importance of procedural fairness, timely appeals, and the legal consequences of failing to challenge orders within the prescribed period.