2013 (10) TMI 1296 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of Tribunal s order - Violation of principle of natural justice - Hearing date not known to assessee - Held that - When the matter was listed on 11-3-2013, the appellant could not appear, ordinarily the party was to informed about the next date by messenger or through any other mode but if the matter was fixed on 11-3-2013 and the Id. Tribunal posted it on 12-3-2013 and passed ex parte order dismissing the appeal, certainly his rights have been jeopardized by not affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing and this being a settled principle of administrative law that no one should be condemned unheard, passing of the ex parte order impugned herein dismissing the appeal of the appellant, has certainly affected his right of hearing. In the facts & circumstances, we find that a reasonable opportunity, as observed, has not been afforded to the appellant - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to appear before the Tribunal leading to an ex parte order.
2. Allegation of not being informed about the next hearing date.
3. Justification of the Tribunal in deciding the appeal ex parte.
4. Violation of the principle of administrative law - right to be heard.
5. Appeal for one opportunity to address the Tribunal on merits.

Issue 1: Failure to Appear Before the Tribunal
The appellant alleged that the adjudicating authority passed an order on 26-3-2012, which the appellant appealed before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). However, due to the absence of the appellant on 11-3-2013, the appeal was dismissed ex parte on 12-3-2013. The appellant argued that their representative could not appear before the Tribunal on the specified date, and no notice of the next hearing date was provided, leading to confusion and the dismissal of the appeal without proper submissions.

Issue 2: Allegation of Not Being Informed About the Next Hearing Date
The appellant contended that the usual practice of the Tribunal is to send notices to the parties before passing final orders, but in this case, no notice of the next hearing date on 12-3-2013 was received. The appellant's representative claimed that without knowledge of the next date, their right to make submissions for the proper adjudication of the dispute was jeopardized. The appellant sought the opportunity to address the Tribunal on merits to ensure a fair hearing.

Issue 3: Justification of the Tribunal in Deciding the Appeal Ex Parte
The respondent opposed the appeal, arguing that sufficient opportunities were provided for a hearing, but the appellant failed to appear before the Tribunal. The respondent supported the Tribunal's decision to proceed ex parte based on the material on record. However, the appellant argued that their rights were compromised due to the lack of proper notification of the hearing date, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without a fair chance to present their case.

Issue 4: Violation of the Principle of Administrative Law - Right to Be Heard
The High Court considered the submissions of both parties and found merit in the appellant's argument. The Court emphasized the importance of the principle that no one should be condemned unheard in administrative proceedings. It held that by not informing the appellant about the next hearing date and dismissing the appeal ex parte, the appellant's right to a reasonable opportunity of hearing was violated, affecting their substantive right of appeal.

Issue 5: Appeal for One Opportunity to Address the Tribunal on Merits
The appellant's counsel sought the Court's intervention to grant one opportunity to address the Tribunal on merits, as the failure to appear on the specified date resulted in the dismissal of the appeal without proper adjudication. The High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the order of the Tribunal dated 12-3-2013, and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh proceeding in accordance with the law. The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 18-11-2013 to ensure a fair hearing and proper adjudication of the dispute.