TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2006 (1) TMI 14
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sonal penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on petitioner No. 3, General Manager of the petitioner company. 5. The matter was carried in appeal, but the appeals came to be dismissed on 31-12-2004 by Commissioner (Appeals), Daman/Vapi. It is averred in the petition that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not insist for pre-deposit of any amount as a condition for hearing the appeals on merits. 6. The petitioners carried the matter in appeal against the order of Commissioner (Appeals). The appeals were accompanied by an application seeking stay of demand. The say of the petitioners is that, as more than four months had elapsed and the stay applications had not come up for hearing, the representative of the petitioners approached the Registry of the Tribunal on 29-8-2005 to make necessary inquiry. Thereupon, the representative was informed that CESTAT had already made an order on 17-8-2005 on the stay applications, and that, as the petitioners were not present at the time of hearing, a direction to de posit the full amount of duty was made by the Tribunal. It is necessary to re produce what is stated on oath by the petitioners at this stage. 'It appears that hearing of the stay applica....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....B/2005/CIII/EB, dated 17-8-2005 is enclosed and marked as Annexure "E". The petitioners have thereafter received a copy of the Final Order Nos. A/475-476/WZB/2005/CIII/EB, dated 1-9-2005 also on 15-10-2005. A copy of this Final Order Nos. A/475-476/WZB/2005/CIII/EB, dated 1-9-2005 is enclosed and marked as Annexure "F".' 7. In the backdrop of aforesaid fact situation the petitioners have approached this Court. Not only aforestated facts, which have remained uncontroverted, but the record reveals this to be a gross case which requires intervention by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction. 8. The Tribunal has made an order (Annexure "E") on the stay applications and the said order records date of hearing and date of decision to be '17-8-2005'. In paragraph No. 2 of the order, it is stated "Accordingly, we dismiss the stay petitions for non-prosecution and the appellants are directed to deposit the entire amount of duty of Rs. 11, 28,397/- by 31-8-2005.". When one peruses the next page of the xerox copy of the order of Tribunal rejecting the stay applications, it is found that the order made by the Member (Judicial) has been signed by the Member (Technical)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... required to adopt in light of the provisions under the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, with special reference to Rule 18 of the said Rules. In the case of Sanghani Bright Steel v. Union of India, 2005 (186) E.L.T. 279 (Guj.), it is laid down: "It is necessary for CESTAT to bear in mind that under main provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1944, (the Act), it is empowered to hear and decide the appeal so as to finally adjudicate upon the rights of the parties viz, assessee and the department for the purpose of ascertainment of liability to duty or otherwise under the Act. Any decision which affects the rights of the parties, especially of an assessee, where the assessee is ultimately going to be called upon to pay duty has to take within its fold the principle's of natural justice. In other words a party which is liable to be affected by the final outcome is required to be granted an opportunity of proper and reasonable hearing in accordance with law. It is this fundamental principle which forms the basis of Rule 18 of the Rules. The said rule provides for date and place of hearing. Under sub-rule (1) of Rule 18 of the Rules it is provided that CEST....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asual and laid-back while discharging the statutory duties. Neither of the approaches can be countenanced. 16. When the order dated 17-8-2005 rejecting the stay applications was made and signed by the Member (Technical) on 24-8-2005, the least one would have expected was application of mind. The facts go to show that the same is entirely non-existent. Directing compliance on 31-8-2005 qua an order made effective only on 24-8-2005 itself would go to indicate that the Bench was far-removed from realities. As the record reveals, the said order did not see the light of the day till 31-8-2005, i.e. the day on which it was delivered to the Post Office for onward transmission. To expect an assessee to comply with an order, which is not even served on the party on the day on which the party is supposed to report compliance, goes to show a callous attitude of not only the Bench, but the Regis try of the Tribunal also. This needs to be mentioned in context of the fact that, on 29-8-2005, when the representative of the petitioners made personal inquiry with the Registry of the Tribunal, as averred in the petition, he was neither given a copy of the order of the Tribunal, nor shown the orde....