Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
2010 (12) TMI 276 - AT - Central ExcisePenalty - Imnpugned order - It is the case of the appellants that though appellants had filed their reply in answer to the show cause notice they were never served with any intimation regarding the personal hearing of the matter and without affording the opportunity to contest the proceedings the entire matter was disposed of by imposing penalty against the appellants - Notice sent to other address - The appeals therefore succeed - matter is remanded to the Commissioner to decide the case afresh as against the appellants in accordance with provisions of law and after service of notice upon them.
Issues: Failure to provide fair opportunity for personal hearing
In this case, the appellants challenged an order passed by the Commissioner, Indore, on the grounds of not being given a fair opportunity to contest the proceedings. The appellants claimed that they were never informed about the personal hearing despite filing a reply to the show cause notice. The impugned order revealed that the Commissioner proceeded with the matter without serving notice to the appellants for the personal hearing. The address mentioned in the order was in Burhanpur, Madhya Pradesh, while the appellants were based in Surat, Gujarat. It was noted that no attempt was made to serve the appellants at their actual location. Due to this failure to provide a proper opportunity for the appellants to contest the proceedings, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Commissioner for a fresh decision after serving notice to the appellants. This judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that parties are given a fair opportunity to present their case and participate in the proceedings. Failure to provide adequate notice for a personal hearing can result in the order being set aside, as seen in this case. It emphasizes the principle of natural justice and the right of parties to be heard before a decision is made against them. The judgment also underscores the significance of serving notices at the correct address of the parties involved to avoid any procedural irregularities. Overall, it serves as a reminder of the procedural safeguards that must be followed in administrative and legal proceedings to uphold the principles of fairness and justice.
|