2012 (12) TMI 509 - HC - Central Excise

Stay of demand - ex parte order - violation of principles of natural justice - Interest on differential duty on finalization of provisional assessment - held that - It is therefore apparent that the Commissioner (Appeals) has proceeded to disregard the request of the petitioner for personal hearing despite the fact that the counsel has clearly sought time in view of the inability to appear on that particular date for this case on the ground that they are engaged before this Court. The petitioner also states that they have given intimation seeking adjournment on the above stated plea. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner has been seeking adjournments frequently to avoid hearing. Unless and until it is shown that the conduct of the party is to avoid appearance without just or reasonable cause there is no justification to decline grant of further time. On this score the order passed in the stay petition without giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner appears to be arbitrary and there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned order is passed without giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner. - Matter remitted back for fresh decision.

Issues:
1. Failure to provide a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in a stay petition.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice by not considering the request for adjournment.
3. Disregard of the petitioner's request for personal hearing.
4. Arbitrary decision-making and violation of natural justice principles.
5. Contradictory statements in the order.
6. Unjust pre-deposit directive for hearing the appeal.
7. Remand of the matter for reconsideration by the respondent.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash an order passed by the respondent related to a differential duty payable on provisional assessment. The petitioner requested a reasonable opportunity of hearing for their appeal. The respondent passed an interim order in a stay petition without considering the petitioner's adjournment request, leading to a violation of natural justice principles.

2. The petitioner's counsel was present on the scheduled hearing date, and the request for adjournment was made due to a case before the High Court. Despite this, the authority proceeded with the stay petition, causing prejudice to the petitioner. The failure to hear the petitioner's case on merits was highlighted as a violation of natural justice principles.

3. The respondent contended that the petitioner should cooperate in the disposal of the stay petition if the order is set aside due to inadequate hearing. The Court had previously remitted a similar matter back to the authority for reconsideration based on the lack of proper opportunity granted to the petitioner.

4. The Court found the order to be arbitrary and in violation of natural justice principles as the petitioner's request for adjournment was disregarded. The order's self-contradictory nature was noted, and it was emphasized that unless there is a justifiable reason for non-appearance, further time should be granted. The directive for pre-deposit without proper hearing was deemed unjustified.

5. The Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the respondent for reconsideration, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and appropriate decision-making. The order was allowed by way of remand, with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

6. The judgment reiterated the importance of providing adequate opportunities for a fair hearing and highlighted the need for authorities to consider adjournment requests made in genuine circumstances. The matter was remitted back for reconsideration, emphasizing the significance of upholding principles of natural justice in legal proceedings.

← Previous Next →