1993 (2) TMI 210 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Violation of principles of natural justice in issuing show cause notice and fixing personal hearing.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice in issuing show cause notice and fixing personal hearing

The case involved the interception of a three-wheeler scooter rickshaw loaded with electric wires and cables, leading to the seizure of goods due to the appellant company's failure to produce necessary Central Excise documents. The appellant was issued a show cause notice calling for explanation on various grounds, including confiscation of goods, recovery of Central Excise duty, and imposition of penalties. However, the appellant requested multiple extensions to file a reply, citing personal reasons and the unavailability of their advocate. Despite several notices and opportunities provided by the department, the appellant failed to appear for personal hearings, leading to an ex-parte decision by the Collector. The impugned order included confiscation of goods, imposition of fines, and recovery of Central Excise duty, which the appellant contested on grounds of inadequate opportunities to respond and appear for hearings.

Issue 1 Analysis:
The appellant's consultant argued that the impugned order violated principles of natural justice by providing insufficient time for compliance with the show cause notice and fixing personal hearings on short notice. The consultant highlighted the appellant's personal tragedies as reasons for non-compliance and requested a remand for a fresh adjudication. The appellant contended that the department's actions were hasty, especially considering the delay in issuing the show cause notice and supplying relevant documents. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's unfortunate circumstances and agreed that the opportunities provided were inadequate, given the complexity and timeline of the case. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's plea and set aside the order, remanding the matter for a fresh adjudication with adequate opportunities for response and hearing.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal allowed the appeal by remanding the case for a fresh adjudication, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice and providing sufficient time for the appellant to respond to the show cause notice and participate in hearings. The decision highlighted the need for procedural fairness and adequate opportunities for parties to present their case effectively in excise matters.