1998 (6) TMI 131 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Granting waiver of pre-deposit based on non-observance of natural justice principles.
2. Clarification on personal hearing opportunity.
3. Errors in adjudication order on valuation.
4. Non-observance of natural justice leading to setting aside the impugned order and remanding for de novo decision on valuation.

Issue 1: Granting waiver of pre-deposit based on non-observance of natural justice principles
The judgment involved the consideration of granting a waiver of pre-deposit of disputed amounts based on the preliminary issue of non-observance of the principles of natural justice in the adjudication of the case. The Bench decided to proceed with the appeals after granting the waiver, indicating the importance of ensuring fairness in the adjudication process.

Issue 2: Clarification on personal hearing opportunity
During the hearing, it was brought to light that the appellants had raised concerns about not being granted a personal hearing by the Commissioner who passed the impugned order. The Commissioner's report stated that adequate opportunities had been given for personal hearings, and the case was decided based on the materials and representations available on record, including cross-examination during personal hearings. This clarification played a crucial role in the decision-making process.

Issue 3: Errors in adjudication order on valuation
The appellants highlighted errors in the adjudication order related to the question of the valuation of imported goods. They pointed out that they were not given the opportunity to present their arguments on this issue due to the lack of a personal hearing. The discrepancies in the dates mentioned in the adjudication order further supported the argument of non-observance of natural justice principles, leading to a decision to set aside the impugned order for a de novo decision on the limited question of valuation.

Issue 4: Non-observance of natural justice leading to setting aside the impugned order and remanding for de novo decision on valuation
Due to the failure to provide a proper opportunity for a personal hearing before the Commissioner, the judgment concluded that the principles of natural justice were not observed. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh decision specifically on the valuation of the imported goods. The appellants accepted certain findings and agreed not to request cross-examination or the production of samples, emphasizing the need for an expeditious completion of the de novo adjudication process.