Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Petrochem Steel Fabricators Pvt. Ltd. vs C.C.E. And Customs on 31 October, 1990
Equivalent citations: 1995(76)ELT135(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER R. Jayaraman, Member (T)
1. In the hearing which took place on 22-8-1990, Shri D.M. Mehta, the ld. Consultant, on behalf of the applicants/appellants pleaded that there is a gross violation of principles of natural justice in this case. The applicants/appellants' factory was under labour trouble. Earlier, in reply to the first show cause notice, they have sent a letter dated 15-6-1987 requesting for more time to give the complete reconciliation. They have also denied the charges. The unit is still under lock out and still having labour trouble. Even during the adjudication done by the Addl. Collector, this was the position. They wrote a reply to the second show cause notice and in their letter dated 29-12-1989, they pleaded this position. The Addl. Collector apparently has not taken into consideration all these letters and gone by a presumption that no reply has been received, the order has been passed ex-parte without even a personal hearing.
2. Shri Mondal, requested for sometime to verify the original record with regard to the receipt of the alleged letters and reply to the show cause notices.
3. In the hearing which took place today, Shri Mondal produced the original records and argued that the reply to the second show cause notice, even if it is received, would not have been considered by the adjudicating authority, since the order has already been passed on the noting side as early as on 9-11-1989 and the letter is stated to have been received only on 29-12-1989. He showed the order on the noting side dated 9-11-1989. He also contended that as per the Department's instruction, the letter dated 15-6-1987 has not been received by them.
4. Shri Mehta, the ld. Consultant, produced the postal acknowledgement in respect of the letter dated 15-6-1987 showing the endorsement of the receipt on 18-6-1987. He also produced the endorsement showing the receipt of the second letter.
5. In view of the aforesaid position, we have decided to take up the appeal itself for deciding on the short ground, though only stay application was listed for hearing. It is not disputed that the order passed by the Addl. Collector is an ex parte order. We also observe that the applicants' unit was facing labour trouble and under lock out for a long period of time. They have sought for sometime to re-concile the discrepancy in RG 1 record, on the basis of which allegation of removal has been made. We find that the Addl. Collector has not given them proper time for re-conciliation, resulting in passing the impugned order. We are also satisfied that the reply to the second show cause notice as well as the earlier show cause notice have been filed requesting for offering such an opportunity. In the circumstances, we would deem it proper to set aside the order passed by the Addl. Collector only on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and we remand the case back to him for de novo consideration. While doing so, we deem it appropriate to direct the appellants to furnish the detailed reply explaining the discrepancy and submitting their defence within a period of eight weeks from the date of communication of this order, which should be duly considered by the Addl. Collector and if personal hearing is requested for, it should also be extended and order passed in accordance with law.
6. Since the appeal itself is disposed of on the short ground, the stay application does not survive for consideration.