1995 (8) TMI 146 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing an ex parte order without adequate hearing; Request for adjournment on grounds of illness rejected; Consideration of whether the rejection of adjournment request was just and proper.

In this case, the appellant challenged an order of the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, arguing that it violated the principles of natural justice as the order was passed ex parte without adequate opportunity for hearing. The appellant's Counsel contended that multiple adjournments were requested due to unavoidable reasons, particularly the illness of the appellant's Consultant, but were unjustly rejected by the adjudicating authority. The key issue was whether the rejection of the adjournment request on 31-10-1990 was just and proper. The Tribunal found that the rejection was improper, considering the Consultant's illness and the supporting Medical Certificate. The Tribunal emphasized that the adjournment request was valid and necessary due to unforeseen circumstances, and the rejection was against the principles of natural justice.

The Tribunal analyzed the sequence of events leading to the rejection of the adjournment request. The Consultant had sought adjournments on valid grounds, including the need for cross-examination and personal illness. The Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had granted previous adjournments but unjustly rejected the request on 31-10-1990. The Tribunal highlighted the Consultant's age, illness, and the Medical Certificate as compelling reasons for the adjournment. The Tribunal criticized the adjudicating authority's observation that personal inconveniences should be ignored, emphasizing that the Consultant's illness warranted a fair consideration for adjournment.

In a separate opinion, another Judge concurred with the decision to set aside the lower authority's order. The Judge emphasized that the Consultant had not sought adjournments to delay the process but due to genuine reasons, such as the need for cross-examination and illness. The Judge concluded that one more adjournment could have been granted before deciding the matter. Ultimately, both Judges agreed that the lower authority's order should be set aside and remanded for reconsideration, considering the unjust rejection of the adjournment request and the violation of natural justice principles.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found in favor of the appellant, ruling that the rejection of the adjournment request on grounds of illness was unjust and against the principles of natural justice. The Tribunal set aside the lower authority's order and remanded the matter for reconsideration, emphasizing the importance of fair hearing procedures and the need to consider genuine reasons for adjournment requests.