Madras High Court
Indian Refrigerator Co. Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 1 February, 2002
Equivalent citations: 2002(83)ECC20, 2002(141)ELT632(MAD)
ORDER N.V. Balasubramanian, J.
1. With the consent of both the sides, this writ petition itself is taken up for hearing.
2. The main grievance of the petitioner is that before passing the impugned Order-in-Appeal No. 182/99 (M-III) dated 1-10-1999, the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai, has not granted a personal opportunity and had the personal opportunity been granted, the petitioner would have produced the relevant documents in support of its plea that because of the financial hardship, it was not in a position to pre-deposit the money as demanded.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of this Court reported in ITC Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai [2001 (127) E.L.T. 338 (Mad.)], wherein this Court has held that the appellate authority in exercising quasi-judicial power should hear the applicant and record the reasons for the conclusions ultimately arrived at.
4. The learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Union of India v. Jesus Sales Corporation and submitted that the personal hearing is not required before passing an order while considering the application for dispensing with the pre-deposit.
5. I am of the view of the issue raised by the petitioner herein is cov ered by the decision rendered in ITC Limited's case reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 338 (Mad.) cited supra, wherein a learned single Judge of this Court has considered the decision rendered in Jesus Sales Corporation Ltd.'s case re ported in , cited supra, which has been relied by the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel appearing on be half of the respondents, and other decisions and then held that the applicant should be heard before passing an order and the authority should also record the reasons for the conclusion ultimately arrived at before rejection of an ap plication for exemption on waiver or stay as it would lead to rejection of the very appeal itself.
6. In view of the decision of this Court rendered in ITC Limited's case reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 338 (Mad.) cited supra, I hold that the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai is not sustainable as the petitioner was not heard before passing of the impugned order. Following the decision rendered in ITC Limited's case reported in 2001 (127) E.L.T. 338 (Mad.) cited supra, the impugned order is quashed and the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chennai is directed to consider the application filed by the petitioner herein, to afford personal opportunity to the petitioner before passing an order and to dispose of the same recording reasons for the conclusion arrived at, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Rule nisi is made absolute. Consequently, W.M.P. Nos. 25415 and 25416 of 1999 are closed and W.V.M.P. No. 28835 of 2001 is dismissed.