9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (2) TMI 202X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Adjudication Order No. 30/CUS/92 dated 10-4-1992. In terms of that order, the learned Dy. Collector had imposed a penalty of Rs. 15,000.00 on the applicant/appellant. That an appeal was filed by the applicant/appellant with the Collector for stay of recovery of the said amount as also waiver of the pre-deposit thereof. 2. The appellant/applicant asked for a personal hearing. But the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) without hearing him passed an order directing the appellant/applicant to deposit a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 after reducing the amount of penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority. That order was intimated to the applicant/appellant by the Collector vide his letter dated 11-8-1992. Thereafter, the applicant/appellant filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he submissions of both sides. It is now seen that the principles of natural justice require that a person should not be condemned before being heard. When an applicant/appellant makes an appeal before the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) along with a Stay Application asking for a personal hearing, it is incumbent on the Appellate Authority to grant a personal hearing with respect to the Stay Petition. In so deciding the Stay Petition, two factors are to be considered. The first factor is the prima facie case and the balance of convenience. The second factor is the hardship which will be caused to the applicant if he is required to deposit the amount. These two factors are to be considered by the learned Collector of Customs (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. This order violates the principles of natural justice since the applicant/appellant was not given any chance to represent his case on the question of pre-deposit of the penalty in question. This procedure followed by the Collector (Appeals) is wholly derogatory to the principles of natural justice. In the decision reported in AIR 1992 SC 248 in the case of Union of Carbide Corporation v. Union of India at page 299 their Lordships held as follows : These are all accepted principles. Their wisdom, verity and universality in the discipline of law are well established. Omission to comply with the requirements of the rule of Audi Alteram Partem, as a general rule, vitiates a decision. Where there is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... accepts the contention that a defect of natural justice in the trial body can be cured by the presence of natural justice in the appellate body, this has the result of depriving the member of his right of appeal from the expelling body. If the rules and the law combine to give the member the right to a fair trial and the right of appeal, why should he be told that he ought to be satisfied with an unjust trial and a fair appeal? Even if the appeal is treated as a hearing de novo, the member is being stripped of his right to appeal to another body from the effective decision to expel him. I cannot think that natural justice is satisfied by a process whereby an unfair trial, though not resulting in a valid expulsion, will nevertheless have the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
