1998 (1) TMI 229 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Denial of principles of natural justice in passing the order

The judgment involves two appeals accompanied by Stay applications regarding a common impugned order by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut. The appellants argued that the order suffered from a denial of principles of natural justice as effective hearing was not granted before passing the order. The appellants, engaged in manufacturing Hi-Tech Process Control Electronic Equipments, received a show cause notice for allegedly short paying Central Excise duty. The appellants repeatedly requested relevant seized documents for a proper reply but faced delays and practical difficulties in attending the personal hearing. The Commissioner confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties despite the appellants' challenges.

Analysis:

The appellants contended that the order lacked principles of natural justice due to the absence of effective hearing before its issuance. The Senior Advocate for the appellants highlighted the procedural lapses in the case, emphasizing the denial of a fair opportunity to present their case. The appellants, involved in manufacturing specialized electronic equipment, faced challenges in responding to the show cause notice due to delays in receiving the necessary seized documents. Despite repeated requests and practical difficulties in attending the personal hearing, the Commissioner proceeded with confirming the duty demand and imposing penalties on the appellants.

Issues: Delaying tactics and failure to attend personal hearings

The Departmental Representative opposed the stay applications, arguing against considering the matter during the stay proceedings. The Commissioner's order acknowledged the appellants' requests for seized documents but noted their failure to attend scheduled personal hearings, interpreting it as delaying tactics. The Commissioner provided multiple opportunities for personal hearings, which the appellants did not avail themselves of, leading to the final order confirming the duty demand and imposing penalties.

Analysis:

The Departmental Representative contested the stay applications and highlighted the appellants' failure to attend scheduled personal hearings despite multiple opportunities provided by the Commissioner. The Commissioner's order documented the acknowledgments of the appellants' requests for seized documents and the opportunities for personal hearings on various dates. The Commissioner observed the appellants' consistent approach of expressing inability to attend hearings due to the lack of necessary documents, which were not returned by the department despite not being relied upon in the show cause notice.

Conclusion:

Upon considering the submissions and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found that the impugned order suffered from a denial of principles of natural justice. Citing the case law precedent and the violation of natural justice principles, the Tribunal remanded the matter to the Commissioner for de novo adjudication. The appellants were directed to cooperate with the department for a prompt resolution, filing a reply within four weeks for a new hearing and subsequent lawful order. The appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of effective hearing and procedural fairness in such matters.