9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (8) TMI 113X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the waiver/stay application, which led to the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner. Thus the order dated 27-9-04, 19-8-04 and 14-9-04 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise, Meerut-II, respondent No. 1 are hereby quashed and the appeal filed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 1 is restored. - 1717 with 1441 (Tax) of 2004 - - - Dated:- 18-8-2009 - R.K. Agrawal and Shashi Kant Gupta, JJ. [Judgment per : Shashi Kant Gupta, J.]. - Since similar questions are involved in these aforementioned writ petitions, they are, with the consent of the parties, being taken up together and disposed of by a common judgment and order. 2. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 1717 (Tax) of 2004 has been filed, inter alia, fo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d amount be not recovered from them. On 31-12-2003 Additional Commissioner adjudicated all the seven show cause notices and disallowed Modvat credit to the tune of Rs. 66,07,214.00 and imposed an equal amount of penalty. Aggrieved by the adjudication order, the petitioner filed an appeal along with stay-cum-waiver application before the Commissioner (Appeals), Meerut-II on 17-5-04. 5. The date of hearing on stay-cum-waiver application was fixed on 17-8-04 vide notice dated 5-8-04. On 12-8-04, the communication of hearing was received by the petitioner. Thereafter, on 16-8-04 the counsel of the petitioner by letter dated 16-8-04 sought an adjournment of hearing fixed on 17-8-04. The Commissioner (Appeals) decided the stay-cum-waiver applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner that 17th August, 2004 was fixed before the Commissioner (Appeals) for hearing on the stay/waiver application and on 16th August, 2004, as a precautionary measure, the petitioner had submitted an application for adjournment which was received in the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the very same date i.e. 16-8-04. The office of the Commissioner (Appeals) for the reason best known did not place the adjournment application before the Commissioner (Appeals), who proceeded to decide the stay/waiver application ex parte on 17th August, 2004, even though the order was passed on 19th August, 2004. Thereafter, an application for recall/review of the said order was filed, which stood rejected and consequently the appeal too was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4, and this fact appears to have not come to his knowledge on 17-8-04. The aforesaid facts clearly shows that the Commissioner (Appeals) showed undue haste in dismissing the waiver/stay application, which led to the dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner. The approach of the Commissioner (Appeals) should be justice oriented and doctrine of fairness is complimentary to principles of natural justice to ensure rule of law and to prevent failure of justice which is evolved to ensure rule of law and to prevent failure of justice. The Commissioner has committed a manifest error and a serious procedural illegality by not granting reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The order passed should be in conformity with the principle of justice, eq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
