Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Bettonville Diamond Equipment (I) Pvt. ... vs C.C.E. on 1 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000(70)ECC844, 2000ECR652(TRI.-CHENNAI), 2001(134)ELT163(TRI-CHENNAI)
ORDER V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. To get this appeal heard, appellants are required to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 4,12,480/- confirmed as duty vide Order-in-Original No. 3/98, dated 28-7-1998 which has been upheld by Order-in-Appeal No. 40/99(V)CE, dated 8-9-1999 passed by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Heard Shri S. Ramnath, ld. Representative of the appellants who submits that the Order-in-appeal impugned has been passed requiring them to pre-deposit Rs. 2 lakhs within 15 days of receipt of the interim order. The said interim order had been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) without giving them an opportunity for personal hearing and therefore the appeal had also been dismissed under Section 35F of the Act for non-deposit by the impugned order. He submits that had the learned Commissioner given them opportunity for personal hearing, they would have represented before him that this matter being a unit located within the Vizag Export Promotion Zone, on matters of export compliances, the Development Commissioner should have been first consulted before issue of show cause notice in terms of Board's circular in the matter. Therefore, the decision has been taken by the order impugned ex parte and there is clear denial of principles of natural justice. Therefore, he seeks for remand for de novo consideration of the matter.
3. Heard Shri M. Kunhikannan, ld. DR who reiterates the order-in-appeal impugned and the attendant order-in-original.
4. We have carefully considered these rival submissions and we find that since the matter lies on a short compass, after granting waiver and stay in the matter, we proceed to consider the appeal itself.
5. On a careful consideration, we find that the order impugned is violative of principles of natural justice in as much as the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) had fixed the pre-deposit of Rs. 2 lakhs without giving personal hearing in the matter. Granting of personal hearing when requested before considering the stay applications by appellate authorities has been considered by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of ITC Limited and Ors. v. CCE (A) and Ors. as in [2000 (1) E.C.L. 97 (Mad.)]. Therein the Hon'ble High Court has laid that it is mandatory to give opportunity for personal hearing before passing such interim orders on stay applications. Respectfully applying the ratio thereof, we set aside the order impugned and remand the matter to the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) for de novo reconsideration of the entire issue including petition of appellants regarding waiver and stay of pre-deposit etc. after following the principles of natural justice and giving them an effective opportunity for personal hearing. Ordered accordingly. The stay application and appeal are disposed of in the above terms.