2015 (7) TMI 340 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of impugned order - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - appeal preferred by the petitioner was finally heard on 26.8.2014 and the same is decided on 27.11.2014. If the impugned judgment and order is perused, it emerges that the Tribunal has relied upon its own decision dated 27.10.2014. It is equally true that the petitioners had no opportunity to plead their case before the Tribunal whether his case is covered as per the Tribunal s decision dated 27.7.2014 or not. Therefore, in our considered view, the Appellate Tribunal ought to have given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before deciding the matter when the Tribunal has relied on its subsequent decision. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenge to appellate tribunal's order, violation of natural justice, remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis:

1. Challenge to appellate tribunal's order:
The petitioner filed a petition under various articles of the Constitution challenging an order passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal had remanded the matter based on its own decision from a previous date. The petitioner argued that they were not given an opportunity to present their case regarding this decision before the Tribunal passed the impugned order. The petitioner's counsel contended that the order should be quashed and the matter remanded for fresh consideration. On the other hand, the respondent's counsel argued that the case was similar to one decided earlier by the Tribunal and that a remand for fresh adjudication was sufficient. The High Court noted the lack of opportunity for the petitioner to be heard on the Tribunal's reliance on its previous decision and held that natural justice required the petitioner to have a chance to present their case. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed the Tribunal to decide the appeal after affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

2. Violation of natural justice:
The petitioner contended that they were not aware of the Tribunal's decision relied upon in the impugned order and thus had no opportunity to make submissions regarding it. The petitioner argued that this lack of opportunity violated the principles of natural justice. The Court agreed with this argument, emphasizing that the petitioner should have been given a chance to plead their case, especially concerning the Tribunal's decision that influenced the outcome. The Court held that the Tribunal should have allowed the petitioner an opportunity to be heard before relying on its subsequent decision. This failure to provide a fair hearing led to the Court accepting the petition and quashing the Tribunal's order.

3. Remand for fresh consideration:
The Tribunal had remanded the matter for fresh adjudication, citing its decision from a previous date. The petitioner sought the quashing of this order and a remand for a fresh consideration where they could present their case properly. The respondent argued that the case was similar to one previously decided, and a remand was sufficient. The High Court, however, found that the petitioner's right to be heard was violated due to the lack of opportunity to address the Tribunal's reliance on its earlier decision. Consequently, the Court accepted the petition, quashed the Tribunal's order, and directed a fresh consideration with an opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.