2022 (5) TMI 1398 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Foreclosure of the right to reply to a notice by the noticee is a violation of principles of natural justice/right to be heard.

The jethmal case, the issue arose from Sea Customs Act, 1878 which did not have a specific provision for issue of notice as exists in the Central Excise Act, 1944.

In this case the principles of natural justice have been violated as the adjudicating authority had in fact taken away (foreclosed) the right of the noticee to reply to the notice and to present his stance/position on facts and law before the court.

Thus the noticee was deprived a right of fair hearing and the matter was remanded back to the original authority for fresh adjudication after the appellant-noticee would take up, reply to the notice and present his version. 

Thus accordingly the illegality was cured/rectified and the matter proposed to be decided on merits  by the original authority after giving the appellant-noticee on notice of intent to take up, and complete, the adjudication process. Appeal allowed by way of remanding back the matter to the original authority.

 

---

Full Text:

2022 (5) TMI 1398 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Right to be heard: foreclosure of the right to reply violates natural justice, requiring fresh adjudication with hearing. Foreclosure of the noticee's opportunity to respond to a notice breaches the right to be heard and principles of natural justice. Where the adjudicating authority has foreclosed the reply, the matter should be returned to the original authority for fresh adjudication after the noticee is given opportunity to reply and to present factual and legal submissions, and after the authority issues notice of intent and completes adjudication with procedural fairness.