TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (3) TMI 194
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....issued subject to the respondent's exporting 78 MT Brass Artware for approximate FOB value of Rs. 14,00,420/-. A show cause notice was issued to the respondent under Section 4-M of the said Act on basis of the report of investigation. Ultimately a penalty of Rs. 6 lakhs was imposed against the said respondent. An appeal was filed on behalf of the respondent alongwith an application for dispensing with the pre-deposit. By a communication dated 18-2-1993 issued on behalf of the Appellate authority, the respondent was directed to deposit 25% of the penalty amount or bank guarantee for the same amount. The validity of this communication was questioned before the High Court saying that before rejecting the prayer made on behalf of the respondent to dispense with the whole amount of penalty an opportunity should have been given to the said respondent of being heard in terms of the proviso to Section 4-M of the Act. Section 4-M of the Act provides : "(1) Any person aggrieved by any decision or order made under this Act may prefer an appeal, - (a) where the decision or order has been made by the Chief Controller or Additional Chief Controller, to the Central Government; ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ined unless the amount of the penalty has been deposited by the appellant. Having said so, the third proviso says that where the Appellate authority is of the opinion that the deposit to be made will cause undue hardship to the appellant, it may at its discretion dispense with such deposit either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may impose. Neither the first proviso which vests power in the Appellate authority for condonation of delay in filing the appeal nor the third proviso which vests power in the Appellate authority to dispense with the deposit of the amount of the penalty unconditionally or on some conditions say specifically that such orders have to be passed only after hearing the parties concerned. The Appellate authority in its discretion may condone the delay in filing the appeal. Same is the position so far the question of pre-deposit of the amount of penalty is concerned. The Appellate authority may dispense with such deposit in its discretion. The proviso relating to the condonation for delay in filing the appeal is more or less on the pattern of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. Somehow, a practice has grown throughout the country that before reject....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction of tax pending disposal of the appeal. The grievance that the said provision in that event shall be deemed to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution being harsh in nature was rejected. But there are statutes which vest power in the Appellate authorities to waive deposit unconditionally or with conditions. So far the present case with which we are concerned, as already pointed out above, the third proviso vests power in the Appellate authority to dispense with the amount of the penalty unconditionally or subject to conditions. As such it is different from the provision under the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act referred to above. Here the discretion has been vested specifically in the Appellate authority to dispense with such deposit whether unconditionally or subject to such conditions as it may impose taking into consideration the undue hardship which such deposit may cause to the appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India took a stand that when aforesaid proviso requires the Appellate authority to exercise discretion taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of each case, it does not flow from the said provision th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicants, as the case may be. When principles of natural justice require an opportunity to be heard before an adverse order is passed on any appeal or application, it does not in all circumstances mean a personal hearing. The requirement is complied with by affording an opportunity to the person concerned to present his case before such quasi-judicial authority who is expected to apply his judicial mind to the issues involved. Of course, if in his own discretion if he requires the appellant or the applicant to be heard because of special facts and circumstances of the case, then certainly it is always open to such authority to decide the appeal or the application only after affording a personal hearing. But any order passed after taking into consideration the points raised in the appeal or the application shall not be held to be invalid merely on the ground that no personal hearing had been afforded. This is all the more important in the context of taxation and revenue matters. When an authority has determined a tax liability or has imposed a penalty, then the requirement that before the appeal is heard such tax or penalty should be deposited cannot be held to be unreasonable as ....