2000 (12) TMI 400 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for illegal import of gold biscuits.
2. Appeal against penalty imposition and application for waiver of pre-deposit.
3. Disposal of the application for waiver by Commissioner (Appeals).
4. Rejection of appeal by lower appellate authority due to non-compliance with deposit direction.
5. Lack of personal hearing, merit consideration, and reasons disclosure in the orders.
6. Violation of natural justice principles in passing the orders.
7. Setting aside the Interim Stay Order and final order for a remand.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the imposition of a penalty of Rs. 85,000 on the applicant for alleged illegal import of gold biscuits by the Jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Customs. The party appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals) and sought a waiver of pre-deposit under Section 129E of the Customs Act.

2. The application for waiver of pre-deposit was disposed of through an "Interim Stay Order" directing the party to deposit the amount within three weeks. However, the party failed to comply within the stipulated time. An application for reconsideration of the stay order was submitted but not considered. The lower appellate authority rejected the appeal solely based on non-compliance without a personal hearing or considering the case's merits.

3. The absence of representation from the applicant led to a request for adjournment or consideration of the stay application on merits. The Tribunal accepted the alternative prayer and decided to dispose of the appeal finally.

4. The Tribunal found that the lower appellate authority passed the Interim Stay Order without a personal hearing and failed to provide reasons for the finding of undue hardship. The reliance on a Supreme Court decision to dispense with personal hearing was deemed misconceived as natural justice principles were violated.

5. Both the Interim Stay Order and the final order were set aside due to the lack of opportunity for a personal hearing and consideration of merits. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of following natural justice principles and remanded the case for reconsideration of the stay application and a speaking order on the appeal after affording a reasonable opportunity for personal hearing.

6. The Tribunal highlighted that the orders' procedural deficiencies, including the absence of personal hearing and merit consideration, were in violation of natural justice principles and could not be sustained. The decision aimed to ensure a fair process and proper consideration of the appellant's case.

7. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the previous orders, instructed a reevaluation of the stay application and appeal on merits with proper personal hearing opportunities, and emphasized the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles in such proceedings.