High Court Orders Fresh Hearing for Petitioner, Stresses Natural Justice Principles

The High Court directed the authority to provide a fresh hearing to the petitioner to ensure compliance with the principles of natural justice. The authority was instructed to review the decision dated 31.03.2015 and reconsider the order demanding pre-deposit within three months, in line with a Division Bench decision. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until the fresh decisions were made.

---

---

Issues:
1. Alleged denial of proper opportunity of leading evidence and cross-examination by the authority.
2. Disposal of application under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and demand for pre-deposit.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged two orders passed by the Tribunals, dated 31.03.2015 and 14.08.2015. Regarding the order dated 31.03.2015, the petitioner contended that they were not given a fair opportunity for evidence and cross-examination. The High Court, in Writ Petition No.300 of 2015, granted the petitioner a proper hearing in accordance with the principles of natural justice on 01.04.2015. However, the petitioner was unaware of the order passed by the respondents on 31.03.2015 until it was served on 10.04.2015, indicating a lack of compliance with the High Court's direction. The respondents agreed to provide a fresh hearing to the petitioner to ensure proper compliance with the court's order.

2. The second order dated 14.08.2015 disposed of the application under Section 35-F of the Central Excise Act, 1944, demanding a pre-deposit of 7.5% duty based on the order dated 31.03.2015. The issue was covered by a Division Bench decision in the case of M/S Ganesh Yadav Vs. Union of India, emphasizing the prospective application of the amendment to Section 35-F from 06.08.2014. The Tribunal's order failed to consider the retrospective application aspect and relied on its previous decision. The Union of India presented the Ganesh Yadav case during the hearing, prompting the authority to reconsider the order within three months, considering the Division Bench decision.

In conclusion, the Commissioner was directed to review the decision dated 31.03.2015 in light of the High Court's order in Writ Petition No.300 of 2015 and to reconsider the second order dated 14.08.2015 in line with the Ganesh Yadav case within three months. No coercive action was to be taken against the petitioner until fresh decisions were made in accordance with the law. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.

---