2000 (5) TMI 266 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Stay application and waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty amounts pending appeal.
- Non-compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit leading to rejection of appeal.
- Legality of the interim stay order and final order passed by the lower appellate authority.

Analysis:
1. The judgment deals with a case where the appellants appealed against an order of adjudication by the jurisdictional Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, confirming a duty demand and imposing a penalty. The appellants also applied for waiver of pre-deposit of the duty and penalty amounts and for stay of recovery pending appeal. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal solely due to non-compliance with the pre-deposit requirement, which is the primary issue in this case.

2. The learned Advocate for the appellants argued that the matter should be remanded to the lower appellate authority for fresh disposal in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice. The Commissioner (Appeals) had passed an interim stay order without hearing the party or providing reasons for finding against the waiver of pre-deposit. The appellants had presented evidence of financial hardship, including being declared a sick unit by the BIFR, but these were not considered. The interim stay order was deemed illegal as it lacked a proper basis and violated principles of natural justice.

3. The judgment highlighted that the final order rejecting the appeal was also issued without granting a personal hearing to the party, solely based on non-compliance with the flawed interim stay order. As a result, the final order was deemed unsustainable in law. The Tribunal set aside both the interim stay order and the final order, remanding the case back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with specific directions. The Commissioner was instructed to consider the stay application with a speaking order, taking into account the party's submissions and providing a reasonable opportunity for a hearing. The appeal was to be decided on its merits after the stay application was addressed.

4. In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority's actions were not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and legal requirements. By setting aside the orders and remanding the case, the Tribunal ensured that the appellants would have a fair opportunity to present their case and have their appeal considered on its merits.