Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Hyderabad
Bhel vs Cce And Ce on 8 December, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(95)ECR549(TRI.-HYDERABAD)
ORDER S.S. Sekhon, Member (T)
1. This common order is being passed in these six appeals and stay applications as the issue involved is in a narrow compass.
2. We have heard Shri M. Narayana Swamy Naidu along with Shri Rajappa, Ld. Consultants for the appellants who are a Public Sector Undertaking. A total amount of Rs. 52.22 crores is involved in these six appeals which were in appeal before the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had ordered a pre-deposit of total amount of Rs. 18.70 crores in these cases by his interim stay order Nos. 510/99 dt 15.4.1999, 555/99 dated 22.4.1999, 554/99 dated 22.4.1999, 509/99 dated 15.4.1999, 508/99 dated 15.4.1999 and 553/99 dated 22.4.1999 in respect of above six appeals. The stay applications as well as the final appeals, for non-compliance of the interim deposit orders made, were dismissed by the Commissioner (Appeals) after, without granting any hearing to the appellants, as regards their difficulties in pre-depositing this huge amount of money or merits of the case involved in these appeals.
3. Ld. DR Shri S. Kannan for the department submits that since a clearance has been obtained in these cases from the Committee of Secretaries, these appeals may be allowed and remanded back to the Commissioner for re-determination of issues on merit, after Tribunal fixes a such reasonable amount as they deem necessary in this case since the issue on merits is strongly in favour of Revenue.
4. We have considered the submissions of Ld. Consultants and the Ld. DR and the material and take up these stay applications and also appeals for disposal by this common order, as we find
(a) In all these cases, the Commissioner has disregarded the principles of natural justice raid in a high handed manner, ordered pre-deposit of huge amount of Rs. 18.70 crores out of total duty of Rs. 52.22 crores determined by the lower authorities and thereafter compounded the issue by dismissing main appeal and dismissing the same without granting any hearing to the appellants as regards the difficulties faced by them in spite of their having asked for a specific hearing for which they filed the application. The order dismissing the appeals do not mention as to what was the unholy hurry on the part of the Commissioner to have dismissed the appeals without even granting a token hearing to the appellants who were knocking at his doors to be heard in this important matter of revenue of Rs. 52.22 crores.
(b) We find that large amount of time has been spent by a Committee of Secretaries, in this matter, along with other Senior Officers of the Ministry and the Public Sector Undertakings in studying the issue and granting permission to file appeals to this Tribunal as required under law and the time of this Tribunal along with the time of other officers concerned with these appeals has been involved and wasted. We find that all this national wastage of time, money, and effort could have been avoided, if the Commissioner had only heard the appellants in the matter.
(c) We find that the Commissioner not only in this case, but in many other cases, has been consistently following this practice of not granting hearing and passing orders resulting in uncalled for proceedings in different forums. Similar proceedings, arose, in many other matters and the issue was taken up to the Madras High Court in the case of ITC and Ors. v. CCE reported in 2000(1) ECL 97 (Mad.) who have remanded such matters for de novo consideration. It is our experience, on this Bench, that many other such matters have been remanded back to the Learned Commissioner for dc novo considerations that he should grant hearings. In the present case, the Orders-in-Appeal have been passed on 1st and 2nd October 1999. Ld. Commissioner, by this remands, of this Bench, he has been made aware of law on this subject. Therefore, it is not understood as to why he is still persisting in taking a view which is contrary to all cannons of established principles of law and natural justice.
(d) In the case of Z.U. AM, G.M., BHEL v. CCE Bhopal reported in 2000 (36) RLT 721 the Hon'ble President of the Tribunal had observed that how an Officer entrusted with a quasi-judicial functions can become crazy and cause untold miseries in blatant violation of law when no regards for the Rule of law. He has further held that if such an officer is entrusted with quasi-judicial duties, he will resort to arbitrary exercise of power which will compel the victims to approach higher Tribunals for extricating them from the illegal orders. We agree with the Hon'ble President's observations, in this case also, it can be held to be a classic example of vagaries of a Government servant who can misuse his powers. We have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has also acted in an arbitrary and illegal manner in exercise of his so-called quasi-judicial powers, as observed by the Hon'ble President in the cited case.
(e) We would therefore like a copy of this order to be sent to the Revenue Secretary, Ministry of Finance and a copy to the Chairman of Central Board of Excise and Customs for taking such further action as may be necessary, as ordered by the Hon'ble President in the cited case supra.
4. When we find that these orders are passed in complete disregard of the principles of natural justice, we have no hesitation to set aside the orders-in-appeal and remand the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the same on merits with directions that pre-deposit of all amounts in this case is waived, since appellants are a Public Sector Undertaking who have been put to uncalled for hardship in this case, and the issues should be determined and decided on merits by the Commissioner, after following the principles of natural justice.
5. The stay applications stand disposed off and matter remanded for dc novo adjudication. Ordered accordingly.
(Pronounced & Dictated in open Court).