1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Court sets aside orders due to adjournment denial, emphasizes natural justice principles. Remanded for fresh decision.</h1> The court set aside the orders of the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the Customs, Excise & Service Appellate Tribunal due to the ... Natural justice Issues:Challenging orders of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and Customs, Excise & Service Appellate Tribunal based on the amount involved and violation of principles of natural justice.Analysis:The petitioners challenged the orders dated 2-8-2002 and 23-9-2003 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) and the Customs, Excise & Service Appellate Tribunal, respectively. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals citing the small amounts involved, falling below the threshold for appeal admission under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The duty amounts and penalties in question were specified for each appeal. The petitioners contended a violation of natural justice as their adjournment request was not considered during the hearing. The request made on 20-7-2002 due to the unwellness of their Central Excise Consultant was not brought to the notice of the Commissioner (Appeals) during the appeal hearing on 25-7-2002 or when the order was passed on 2-8-2002. The acknowledgment slip with the courier's endorsement dated 24-7-2002 supported their claim.The learned senior standing counsel for the respondents did not contest the fact that the petitioners' adjournment request was not presented before the Commissioner (Appeals). Based on this ground, the court decided to set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of granting the petitioners a fair opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the petition was allowed, annulling the impugned orders and instructing the Commissioner (Appeals) to reconsider the appeals after affording the petitioners a chance to present their case.Additionally, the court took note of the counsel's statement that the petitioners would attend the next hearing without seeking further adjournments. The rule was made absolute to the extent of setting aside the previous orders, with no costs imposed on either party.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
