2000 (1) TMI 352 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in passing an ex-parte order without considering adjournment requests and not providing a speaking order.

Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice
The appeal arose from an ex-parte order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the appellants' requests for adjournment. The appellants had requested adjournment on three occasions due to their Counsels' unavailability, seeking different dates. However, the Commissioner proceeded ex-parte without considering their requests, leading to the contention that there was a violation of principles of natural justice. The appellants argued that their pleas raised in the appeal memo were not reflected in the order, indicating a lack of independent findings and application of mind by the Commissioner.

Issue 2: Lack of a speaking order
The appellants contended that the Commissioner's order lacked a speaking order as it merely concurred with the findings of the Asstt. Commissioner without discussing the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. The appellants emphasized that the substantial amount of refund claimed, exceeding Rs. 14.21 crores, warranted a detailed and considered order. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner's decision in four lines was unsatisfactory for such a significant issue, highlighting the necessity for a speaking order. The seriousness of the case necessitated the Commissioner to grant adjournment and provide a detailed hearing to the appellants, considering all their pleas and arguments before passing a comprehensive order.

Judgment Summary:
The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the submissions and records, found that the Commissioner's order lacked a speaking order and did not address the appellants' adjournment requests adequately. As a result, the Tribunal set aside the order without granting a stay and remanded the case to the Commissioner for de novo consideration. The appellants were instructed to inform the Commissioner in advance of a suitable date for the hearing, during which they should present their pleas and arguments. The Commissioner was directed to consider all the raised pleas and grounds of appeal before issuing a detailed and considered order. Thus, the appeal was remanded to the Commissioner for de novo consideration without a stay in the matter, emphasizing the importance of providing a speaking order and adhering to principles of natural justice.