Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Indian Organic And Pharmaceutical ... vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 5 July, 1988
Equivalent citations: 1988(19)ECR405(TRI.-DELHI), 1988(40)ELT201(TRI-DEL)
ORDER D.C. Mandal, Member (T)
1. When this matter came for hearing, Shri Surendra Mishra, Consultant appeared for the appellants and Shri V.M. Doiphode, S.D.R. appeared for the respondent. Shri Mishra mentioned that he had filed a paper book on 16-6-1988. When put to Shri Mishra as to whether the paper book contains any document not considered by the lower authorities, he replied in the affirmative. It was made clear to him that since no application has been filed by the appellants for introduction of additional evidence, the documents which were not before the lower authorities for consideration could not be taken into consideration by us. Shri Mishra then said that he would not rely on the additional documents. He stated that he would rely on the documents mentioned against serials No. 1, 2, 3,4, 7, 8, 9 to 16, 19, 23 to 28, 30 to 39, 41 and 42 of the Index attached to the paper book. The learned S.D.R. had no objection to these documents being relied upon.
2. As regards prior deposit of duty, Shri Mishra has submitted that Rs. 21,002/- was deposited on 9-12-1985 and Rs. 8,000/- was deposited on 23-9-1985. He has stated that in depositing an amount of Rs. 21,002/- on 9-12-1985 there was delay of one day. He prayed for condonation of delay. The delay was condoned and thereafter the appeal was taken up for hearing.
3. Arguing for the appellants, Shri Mishra has stated that appeal was last heard on 16-6-1983 by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur, but the Order-in-Original was passed by the Additional Collector without intimation to the appellants herein. Shri Doiphode has stated that letter No. C.No. V (15AA) (15) Seiz/MP/ADJ/26/82 dated 23-9-1983 was sent by registered post with acknowledgement due to the appellants by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Kanpur in which it was intimated to them that the matter would be decided by the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur and whether they would like to be heard again by the Additional Collector. No reply was received from the appellants and accordingly, order was passed by the Additional Collector. The learned Consultant denied the receipt of this letter by the appellants. The learned S.D.R. was asked by the Bench to check up whether there is any acknowledgement of receipt of this letter by the appellants. After checking up the case file the learned S.D.R. has stated that there is no acknowledgement in the case records. He has also stated that notings in the file also do not indicate that the letter was received by the appellants. Shri Mishra has further stated that in the Order-in-Original the Additional Collector has referred to letters dated 13-3-1982 and 15-9-1982, but the copies of the same were not made available to the appellants. Shri Mishra has argued that there was clear violation of the principle of natural justice by not supplying copies of those letters to the appellants and also by deciding the case by the Additional Collector without giving any intimation whatsoever to the appellants after the case was heard by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise. He has prayed that on this ground itself the appeal should be allowed and impugned order should be set aside.
4. We have considered the arguments and the records of the case. We are convinced that there is violation of principle of natural justice inasmuch as the case was heard by the Deputy Collector of Central Excise on 16-6-1983, but the adjudication order was passed by the Additional Collector of Central Excise without giving a fresh hearing to the appellants. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Additional Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur for de novo adjudication after giving copies of those two letters to the appellants and also giving them an opportunity of personal hearing.
5. Appeal is allowed by remand.