2014 (7) TMI 656 - AT - Central Excise

Tribunal denies stay petitions, stresses cooperation, and compliance with natural justice principles.

M/s WAGHBAKRIWALA RAYONS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX

The tribunal rejected stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit due to appellant's failure to provide necessary documents. It acknowledged a violation of ... Waiver of pre-deposit of the amount of duty confirmed, interest thereof and penalties imposed - Clandestine removal of goods - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that:- There is nothing on record to indicate that they had not received show cause notice. In view of this, we hold that appellants herein were non-cooperative with the adjudicating authority. At the same time, there being a claim of violation of principles of natural justice, in the interest of justice, in our view, the appellants should be granted an opportunity for filing reply to the show cause notice and being heard by the adjudicating authority. - stay granted partly - Matter remanded back. Issues: Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties; Violation of principles of natural justice; Non-cooperation of the appellant.Stay petitions for waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties:The judgment pertains to three stay petitions seeking the waiver of pre-deposit of duty, interest, and penalties imposed on the company and an individual. The appellant, despite a prior adjournment, failed to provide necessary documents for the stay applications. The tribunal rejected the adjournment request as the reason provided was deemed unconvincing. The tribunal proceeded with the disposal of the stay petitions in the absence of representation from the appellant.Violation of principles of natural justice:The demands were confirmed on the company for the alleged illicit removal of fabrics. The appellant claimed a violation of principles of natural justice, stating they did not receive hearing notices and were unable to respond to the show cause notice. The tribunal noted that although the adjudicating authority claimed to have granted a personal hearing, the hearing notices were returned undelivered. Despite the claim of non-receipt of the show cause notice, the appellant did not file a reply or represent before the adjudicating authority. The tribunal acknowledged the claim of a violation of natural justice and granted the appellants an opportunity to file a reply and be heard by the adjudicating authority.Non-cooperation of the appellant:The tribunal observed non-cooperation from the appellant, evidenced by repeated requests for adjournments. To address this, the tribunal directed the main appellant to deposit a specified amount within a stipulated period and report compliance to the adjudicating authority. All appellants were instructed to file a reply to the show cause notice within a specified timeframe. Compliance with the deposit requirement and filing of replies would enable the adjudicating authority to proceed with the matters after ensuring adherence to the principles of natural justice. The stay petitions and appeals were allowed by way of remand, emphasizing the importance of cooperation and compliance with the directives provided.This comprehensive analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of the stay petitions, violation of natural justice, and non-cooperation of the appellant, along with the tribunal's decisions and directives in response to each issue.