1993 (7) TMI 197 - AT - Central Excise

Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2. Alleged concession by counsel regarding suppression and evasion of duty.
3. Bias and conduct of the adjudicating authority.
4. Appropriate forum for remedy and procedural propriety.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal:
The primary issue is whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned. The appellant received the impugned order on 8-3-1989 and filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court on 31-3-1989. After the dismissal of the writ petition on 17-9-1992, a writ appeal was filed on 1-12-1992, which was dismissed on 18-2-1993. The appeal was then filed before the Tribunal on 19-2-1993 along with an application for condonation of delay. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had been bona fide pursuing legal remedies in good faith before the High Court. The Tribunal applied the broad principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to exclude the period during which the proceedings were pending before the High Court. The Tribunal cited several precedents, including the ruling of the Supreme Court in Vidyadharan Shukla and the Madras High Court in The Coimbatore Murugan Mills Ltd. v. The Board of Revenue (Commercial) Taxes Chepauk, Madras and Another, to support the condonation of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that "sufficient cause" should be interpreted liberally to ensure substantial justice.

2. Alleged Concession by Counsel Regarding Suppression and Evasion of Duty:
The adjudicating authority's order mentioned that the appellant's counsel had conceded to the suppression of facts and evasion of duty. The appellant's counsel, Shri Raman, vehemently denied this, stating that the observation was false and had brought disrepute to his professional integrity. He argued that during the personal hearing, he had extensively argued against the Department's charges, and this was recorded in the notes of the personal hearing. The Tribunal reviewed the notes of the personal hearing and found no indication that the counsel had made any concession regarding the suppression and evasion of duty. The Tribunal also referred to a letter dated 28 March 1989 from Shri Raman to the Collector, expressing his shock and requesting the removal of the offending paragraphs from the order. The Tribunal concluded that the counsel had not made any such concession and that the adjudicating authority's observation was incorrect.

3. Bias and Conduct of the Adjudicating Authority:
The appellant alleged that the adjudicating authority was biased and had a preconceived notion against them. The Tribunal noted that the initial adjudication order dated 10-6-1988 was passed hastily on the same day as the personal hearing, and the penalty imposed was unusually high at Rs. 1 crore. This order was set aside by the Madras High Court, which directed a de novo enquiry. In the subsequent adjudication, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 1 lakh, raising questions about the consistency and fairness of the adjudicating authority's decisions. The Tribunal found it difficult to appreciate the drastic reduction in the penalty and concluded that the adjudicating authority's conduct was questionable.

4. Appropriate Forum for Remedy and Procedural Propriety:
The respondents contended that the appellant should have filed a statutory appeal before the Tribunal instead of pursuing writ proceedings in the High Court. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had pursued the writ remedy in good faith, believing it to be the appropriate course of action to vindicate the counsel's professional integrity. The Tribunal referred to the observations of the Madras High Court, which had directed the appellant to file an appeal before the appropriate authority and to explain the delay. The Tribunal emphasized that the appellant's actions were bona fide and that the delay should be condoned.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting the bona fide pursuit of legal remedies by the appellant. The Tribunal also set aside the impugned order due to the incorrect observation regarding the counsel's concession and the questionable conduct of the adjudicating authority. The matter was remanded for fresh adjudication by a different adjudicating authority, with directions to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

← Previous Next →