1995 (8) TMI 192 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Remittal of the case due to the appellant's Counsel's ill-health and seeking modification of the order.
2. Appeal against the order of confiscation of goods and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Consideration of penalty levied on the appellant.
4. Granting adjournment on grounds of ill-health to the Counsel.
5. Reconsideration of the penalty issue by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Madras, involved multiple issues. Firstly, the Tribunal considered remitting the case due to the appellant's Counsel's ill-health and subsequent modification of the order. The Tribunal noted that the Counsel could not argue the case on a specific date due to ill-health, leading to the remittal of the matter. The Tribunal granted a waiver of pre-deposit of penalty and proceeded with the appeal for disposal.

Secondly, the appeal was against the Collector of Customs, Madras' order confiscating goods under various sections of the Customs Act, 1962, along with imposing a penalty. The goods were not claimed by the appellant, resulting in the confirmation of confiscation. The Tribunal focused on the penalty levied on the appellant as the limited issue for consideration in the appeal.

Thirdly, the appellant's Counsel argued that adjournment was sought due to the Counsel's ill-health on a hearing date. The Counsel cross-examined witnesses on a previous date, emphasizing that the intention was not to protract the proceedings. The Tribunal considered whether the adjudicating authority could have granted adjournment on the specific date due to the Counsel's ill-health, ultimately setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for reconsideration.

Lastly, the Tribunal highlighted the importance of granting adjournment on grounds of ill-health, stating that it is a reasonable request in legal proceedings. The Tribunal emphasized affording the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard, leading to the remand of the matter for the adjudicating authority to reconsider the penalty issue in accordance with the law. The judgment underscored the procedural fairness and the right to be heard in legal proceedings.