Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi
Jayashree Timber Products vs Collector Of Customs And Excise on 28 April, 1986
Equivalent citations: 1988ECR192(TRI.-DELHI), 1987(27)ELT707(TRI-DEL)
ORDER
1. M/s. Jayashree Timber Products has filed an appeal being aggrieved from Order-in-Appeal No. 868/Cal/82 dated 21-9-1982 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta. Shri D.N. Mehta, the learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the applicant. He has argued that there is denial of principles of natural justice. He has filed a photostat copy of the appeal petition filed before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta and has also supplied the copy of the same to the learned departmental representative, Shri D.K. Saha. Shri Mehta, the learned Advocate has referred to prayer C which appears on page 5 of the Memorandum of Appeal and has pleaded that it reads as "a personal hearing be granted before this appeal is otherwise disposed of". Shri Mehta, the learned Advocate has pleaded that even if the appeal was hit by limitation, it was obligatory for the Collector of Central Excise to grant a personal hearing. In support of his contention, he has sited a judgment in the case of Travancore Rayons Limited v. Union of India and Ors. reported in 1978 ELT (J378). He has cited another judgment in the case of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Hindustan Pilkington Glass Works Limited v. Superintendent, Central Excise, Asansol and Ors. reported in 1978 ELT (3229) where the Hon'ble High Court had held that the denial of natural justice is itself a miscarriage of justice, which cannot be cured by preferring an appeal. He has pleaded that the matter may be remanded to the Collector of Appeals for decision in accordance with the law and further pleads that it will be open to the Collector of Appeals to decide whether the appeal was in time or whether the delay should be condoned or not.
2. Shri D.K. Saha, the learned JDR pleads that in view of the arguments of the learned Advocate, he has got no objection if the matter is remanded to the Collector of Appeals.
3. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold that there was denial of principles of natural justice. The Appellate Collector of Central Excise should have granted a hearing to the Appellant. Accordingly, we remand the matter to the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise, Calcutta to decide the same in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the Appellant.