9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (4) TMI 531X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the appeal could be disposed of at that stage. If the Tribunal was inclined to dispose of the appeal, parties ought to have been placed on notice of this in order to enable them to make submissions on the merits of the appeals. That evidently has not been done. The impugned order of the Tribunal therefore suffers from a fundamental breach of the principles of natural justice. As during the course of the hearing, in response to a query of the Court, Counsel appearing on behalf on the petitioners fairly stated that he would have no objection if the order of the Tribunal is set aside in its entirety and the proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. Accordingly the impugned decision of the Tribunal purely on t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unal at the stage of the hearing that the appeals would be taken up for hearing and final disposal and that it was inclined to grant a waiver of pre-deposit. The following grounds have been raised in the petition in support of the submission: A. It is submitted that, admitted what was heard by the Respondent No. 2 on 21 st February 2011, was an application under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, filed by the Petitioners seeking waiver of pre-deposit of dues, interest and penalties. The Petitioners made submissions on the said stay application under Section 35F of the Act. No. indication was given by the Respondent No 2 that it proposes to dispose off the appeals finally. B. It is submitted that the Respondent No. 2 never pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the submissions the factual position that the Tribunal had heard only the stay applications and not the appeals themselves on 28 February 2011. 4. Counsel Appearing on behalf of the Revenue has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground that since the appeals have been disposed of by the Tribunal, an alternate remedy of an appeal is available against the decision of the tribunal. Ordinarily we would have been inclined to remit the petitioners to the remedy of an appeal against the decision of the Tribunal if the petitioners had been heard on the merits by the Tribunal. In Whirlpool Corporation V Registrar of Trade marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1, the law has been settl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded to dispose of the appeal. During the course of the hearing, in response to a query of the Court, Counsel appearing on behalf on the petitioners fairly stated that he would have no objection if the order of the Tribunal is set aside in its entirety and the proceedings are remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned decision of the Tribunal dated 13 May 2011 purely on the ground that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice and restore both the stay application and the appeals to the file of the Tribunal. It would be open to the Tribunal to pass fresh orders on the applications for stay. In the event that the Tribunal is inclined to take up the appeals for hearing and fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
