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
1989 (2) TMI 300 - AT - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Applicability of penalty and duty under different rules 2. Allegation of breach of natural justice in setting the hearing date 3. Failure to consider submissions in the tentative reply 4. Impact of financial hardship due to external factors 5. Adequacy of opportunities for hearing and delays 6. Substantiation of financial hardship claim Analysis: The judgment pertains to a case where the impugned order imposed a penalty and duty on the appellant under different rules. The appellant's advocate argued that the order was against the principles of natural justice as the hearing notice was received after the scheduled time, depriving the appellant of a fair hearing. The advocate also contended that the adjudicating authority did not consider the submissions made in the tentative reply. Additionally, the appellant's factory had suffered losses due to external events, impacting their financial condition and ability to pay the dues demanded. The JDR representing the respondents countered by stating that the appellant had been given multiple opportunities for hearings, but had engaged in delaying tactics. The JDR argued that the appellant did not deserve leniency as they had not availed themselves of the opportunities provided. Moreover, the JDR questioned the lack of evidence to support the claim of financial hardship put forth by the appellant. Upon careful consideration, the tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument regarding the breach of natural justice due to the delayed receipt of the hearing notice. The tribunal found merit in the appellant's contention and decided to dispense unconditionally with the dues demanded in the impugned order. The tribunal also disagreed with the JDR's stance that the adjudicating authority was not required to consider the appellant's submissions. Ultimately, the tribunal exercised its powers under Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944, to set aside the dues demanded and remand the case for a fresh decision in line with the principles of natural justice.
|