9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (11) TMI 239X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d filed the appeals against the impugned order passed by the authorities below confirming demands of duty and imposition of penalties along with the stay applications in terms of provisions of Section 35F of Central Excise Act. As per the notice issued by the Registry, stay applications were listed on 15-7-2009, when the appellant appeared alongwith co-appellants. After hearing one of the co-appellants, the matters were adjourned to 17-7-2009. After hearing the appellants as also the other co-appellants, the hearing of the stay petitions were concluded and the orders were reserved. Senior learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that subsequently the order was received by them on 18-9-2009 vide which the appeals itself were disp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . On going through the final order also, we find that there is nothing to suggest that the matters were heard for disposal of the final appeals. 4. We, however, observed that the final appeals can definitely be disposed at the time of stay hearings. However, when the arguments are advanced on the stay petitions, without any intimation to the appellant that orders are being reserved on final appeals, it may not be appropriate to dispose of the appeals, without giving any opportunity to the appellants to decide the appeals. The same may amount to gross violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as the issue stand decided against the appellant, without hearing him on merits of the case. It may not be out of place to mention tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... authority having jurisdiction to adjudicate, proceeds to do so, but in doing so ascertains whether it has committed a procedural illegality which goes to the root of the matter and invalidates the proceeding itself, and consequently the order passed therein. Cases where a decision is rendered by the court or quasi judicial authority without notice to the opposite party or under a mistaken impression that the notice had been served upon the opposite party, or where a matter is taken up for hearing and decision on a date other than the date fixed for its hearing, are some illustrative cases in which the power of procedural review may be invoked. In such a case, the party seeking review or recall of the order does not have to substantiate the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w the present application and recall the earlier order of Tribunal No. Stay Order No. 876-889/2009/Final Order Nos. 609-630/2009 - EX (DB), dated 4-9-2009 [2010 (249) E.L.T. 462 (T)], in so far as the same relates to present applicants. Applications are allowed. Appeals are restored to their original numbers. 8. However, since the Final order dated 4-9-2009 is a combined order waiving pre-deposit and rejecting the appeals, and since even according to the applicants only stay petitions were heard and no orders were passed on the same, we are of the view that with the recall of the order dated 4-9-2009, the stay petitions are required to be disposed of first as the order waiving the requirement of pre-deposit also stands recalled. Accor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
