Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Technovision And Plant Protection ... vs C.C. Ex., Chennai-Ii And C.C. Ex., ... on 21 September, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2001(73)ECC488
ORDER S.L. Peeran, Member (J)
Appeal No. E/1870/99:
1. The stay/appeal filed by appellants M/s. Techno vision arises from OIA No. 136/99 (M-II) dated 28.9.99 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Chennai dismissing the appeal for non-compliance of his interim order dated 3.9.99 in terms of Section 35F of the Act.
2. The Commissioner has, while passing the exparte interim order, taken a view that no hearing be granted to them in terms of Apex Court judgment rendered in a Sales Tax matter in the case of UOI and Ors. v. Jesus Sales Corporation Ltd. .
Appeal No. E/994/2000:
3. This stay & appeal arises from OIA No. 47/2000 (G) CE dated 11.4.2000 passed by Commissioner (Appeals), Hyderabad dismissing the appeal of appellants for noncompliance of his interim order which is also an ex parte order passed by the said Commissioner without granting hearing to them.
4. In the case of M/s. Techno vision, Shri RV Srinivasa Raghavan appears and contends that the exparte order is not legal and proper as held by the Madras High Court in the case of TTC and Ors. 2000 (1) ECL 97 (Mad.) wherein it has been clearly laid down by Hon"ble Madras High Court in terms of Section 35A read with Section 35F of the CE. Act, parties are required to give an opportunity of hearing to put forth their prima facie case as well as financial hardship, if any. He submits that in terms of provisions of law, interim order is required to be passed only after giving an opportunity of hearing and the direction to pre-deposit has to be thereafter. He submits that Commissioner has violated the basic fundamental principles of natural justice in deciding the matter without grant of hearing. He submits that Hon'ble Madras High Court has clearly ruled that judgment of Apex Court in Jesus Sales Corporation Ltd. supra was in respect of statute which did not provide for grant of hearing, while in the present statute grant of hearing is a mandatory provision. He also submits that large number of appeals have since been set aside and remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) to hear afresh the stay petition. He seeks for similar order in this case also.
5. In the case of M/s. Plant Protection Products (P) Ltd., (Appeal No. E/994/2000) Shri S. Ravi Kumar, Advocate appears and seeks for a similar order as noted above in the matter.
6. Heard Ld. DR Shri S. Kannan who reiterates departmental view.
7. On careful consideration of both the matters, we notice that interim orders and final orders have been passed without grant of hearing exparte. In view of cited Madras High Court judgment, the orders impugned are nullity and therefore waiver of pre-deposit and recovery of amount in both the cases is allowed and appeals are taken and remanded to Commissioner (Appeals) with specific direction that they shall pass notice of hearing to be served on the appellants and after grant of opportunity of hearing, pass interim orders on stay applications afresh, in the light of Madras High Court judgment supra. Both the appeals are allowed by remand.