Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
G.S. Auto International Ltd. vs Collector Of C. Ex. on 4 August, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1996(82)ELT128(TRI-DEL)
ORDER G.P. Agarwal, Member (J)
1. Being dis-satisfied with the ex parte impugned Order-in-Appeal the appellants have filed their present appeal.
2. Arguing on behalf of the appellants Shri Gopal Prasad, Ld. Advocate, submitted that the case was posted for hearing by the Collector (Appeals) in his office at 11.30 A.M. But due to tyre puncture Shri T.R. Tandon, Ld. Consultant, reached his office at 11.45 A.M. and requested in writing that the case be heard in the afternoon or any other date may be fixed. This request was delivered in the office of the Collector (Appeals) at 12.55 P.M. on 24-4-1991 itself as could be seen from the photocopy of the said request dated 24-4-1991 which contained the acknowledgement of the Office of the Collector (Appeals) to the effect that it was received on 24-4-1991 at 12.55 P.M. (see page 25 of the Paper Book). In this premises he requested that the impugned order-in-appeal be set aside and the case be remanded to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh. In reply Shri Dutta, Ld. JDR, has nothing to comment.
3. Considered. In the impugned Order-in-Appeal it is stated by the Collector (Appeals) in paragraph 2 that "Personal hearing was granted on 24-4-1991. Neither appellants nor their authorised representative appeared for hearing nor any request for adjournment was received. The cases are, therefore, be decided on merits". This order was passed on 29-4-1991. From the photocopy of the said letter of request we find that Shri T.R. Tondon, Ld. Consultant for the appellants did reach the Office of the Collector (Appeals) to participate in the personal hearing on 24-4-1991 itself at 11.45 A.M. and requested for hearing either in the afternoon or on some other date. This written request was delivered in the Office of the Collector (Appeals) at 12.55 P.M. itself on that day. Nothing contrary was pointed to us by the Ld. JDR. Under these circumstances, the observation of the Ld. Collector (Appeals) in his impugned order that there is no request for adjournment on the record does not appear to be factually correct. It may be that the said request might not have been brought to the notice of the Collector (Appeals) while passing the impugned order after about 4 days that is to say on 29-4-1991. It may also be noted here that from the impugned order it does appear that at what point of time the case was taken over by the Collector (Appeals) on 24-4-1991. In view of this we find that the Collector (Appeals) proceeded in haste to decide the appeal on merits ex parte violating the principles of natural justice.
4. In the result, we set aside the impugned order-in-appeal and remand the case to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) now designated as Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Chandigarh for passing a fresh order after affording reasonable and effective opportunity of personal hearing to the appellants.
5. Consequently, both the appeals stand allowed by remand.