1993 (4) TMI 133 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Stay of impugned order pending appeal.
2. Infirmities in the impugned order passed by the Collector.
3. Request for remand of the case for de novo adjudication.
4. Non-application of mind in the impugned order.
5. Violation of principles of natural justice in the decision-making process.

Analysis:

1. The appellants sought a stay of the impugned order pending appeal, citing a strong prima facie case. The case involved discrepancies in the quantity of toughened glass and safety glass found during a visit to the factory. The Collector had confirmed demands and imposed penalties, which were challenged on appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The impugned order passed by the Collector was challenged for various infirmities. The Senior Counsel highlighted contradictions in the Collector's findings regarding duty demands and penalties. The Collector's directive to calculate differential duty and the subsequent order determining duty liability were also contested. The impugned order was deemed vague and unsustainable due to non-application of mind.

3. The respondents argued that the appellants' private records indicated discrepancies in production recording. The request for remand for de novo adjudication was left to the Bench's discretion.

4. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants that the impugned order showed non-application of mind. As a result, pre-deposit of duty and penalty was dispensed with, and the appeal was decided without objection from either side.

5. The Collector's decision-making process was scrutinized for violating principles of natural justice. Citing a previous judgment, it was emphasized that when one person hears evidence and another decides, it undermines the concept of a fair hearing. The Tribunal held that the impugned order lacked application of mind and failed to adhere to natural justice principles.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and the Assistant Collector's decision, remanding the matter for de novo adjudication with an opportunity for the appellants to be heard. The Tribunal stressed the importance of timely resolution, urging a decision within four months of the order's receipt.