Madanlal Kanya Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. m/s madanlal kanya has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the collector of customs (appeals), calcutta.simultaneously, a stay application was also filed. shri n. ramanathan, ld. consultant has appeared on behalf of the applicant and pleaded that there was denial of principles of natural justice. the appellant had filed a stay application dated 18.1.1991 which appears on page 27 of the paper-book and the collector vide letter did. 20.2.1991 had intimated the appellant that he should deposit the amount on or before 15.3.1991 and in response to the letter did. 20.2.1991, the appellant had written vide letter did. 4.3.1991 to reconsider the decision and also grant a personal hearing without insisting upon the pre-deposit of the amount in terms of section 129e of the customs act, 1962. shri ramanathan, the ld. consultant pleaded that instead of passing an order on the stay application the collector (appeals) straightway proceeds to decide the slay application as well as appeal by a common order and no personal hearing was granted. he pleaded that there was denial of principles of natural justice. in support of his argument, he cited a decision of the tribunal in the case of honest products, rajkot v.c.c.e., rajkot reported in 1991 (35) ecr 178 wherein tribunal had held that natural justice was violated where appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of section 35f of the central excises & salt act, 1944 before the disposal of the stay application. he pleaded that the pre-deposit before the tribunal may be dispensed with; and the matter be remanded to the collector of customs (appeals), and he may dispose of the stay application filed before him on merits after observing principles of natural justice. thereafter, dispose of this appeal in accordance with law.2. shri a.k. singhal, the ld. jdr does not oppose the request of the ld. consultant in view of the submissions made by him and leaves the matter to the discretion of the bench.3. we have heard both the sides and have gone into the facts and circumstances of the case. the appellant being not satisfied by the order passed by the asstt. collector had filed an appeal before the collector of customs (appeals) and a stay application was also filed vide letter did. 18.1.1991. in the stay application, the applicant has mentioned as to the bank guarantee and had also mentioned that the revenue's interest was safeguarded. the collector vide his letter did.20.2.1991 had intimated the appellant to deposit the amount on or before 15.3.1991 and the appellant vide letter did. 4.3.1991 had again requested for the grant of personal hearing without insisting on the pre-deposit of the duly amount. the collector did not grant personal hearing undoubtedly he was within his rights whether to accept the offer of the appellant for treating the bank guarantee as pre-deposit but in the present matter, he did not grant personal hearing.therefore, we are of the view that there was denial of principles of natural justice. this tribunal has taken similar view in honest products ltd. case reported in 1991 (35) ecr 178. para 4 from the said judgment is reproduced below: we have already discussed the merits as to denial of principles of natural justice in the above paras. we are of the view point that when the stay application was pending before the collr of central excise (appeals), he should have first disposed of the stay application and then he could have dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of provisions of section 35f. accordingly we hold that there was denial of principles of natural justice. we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the collector of central excise (appeals) to redecide, the appeal, because the appellants have already deposited the duty amount and had complied with the provision of section 35f. we further order that white re-deciding the same, cottr of central excise (appeals) shall observe principles of natural justice and also grant personal hearing to the appellants. since the matter is very old, we shall appreciate if he re-decides the same within four months from the receipt of the order.in view of the earlier decisions of the tribunal and our observations, we are of the view that there was denial of principles of natural justice. we dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty amount for purposes of hearing of the present appeal and remand the matter to the collector of customs (appeals). we further direct that the collr of customs (appeals) shall dispose of the pending stay application as well as the appeal in accordance with law after observing principles of natural justice and shall also grant a personal hearing for the stay application as well as appeal.

Judgment:
1. M/s Madanlal Kanya has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Calcutta.

Simultaneously, a stay application was also filed. Shri N. Ramanathan, ld. consultant has appeared on behalf of the applicant and pleaded that there was denial of principles of natural justice. The appellant had filed a stay application dated 18.1.1991 which appears on page 27 of the paper-book and the Collector vide letter did. 20.2.1991 had intimated the appellant that he should deposit the amount on or before 15.3.1991 and in response to the letter did. 20.2.1991, the appellant had written vide letter did. 4.3.1991 to reconsider the decision and also grant a personal hearing without insisting upon the pre-deposit of the amount in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Shri Ramanathan, the ld. consultant pleaded that instead of passing an order on the stay application the Collector (Appeals) straightway proceeds to decide the slay application as well as appeal by a common order and no personal hearing was granted. He pleaded that there was denial of principles of natural justice. In support of his argument, he cited a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Honest Products, Rajkot v.C.C.E., Rajkot reported in 1991 (35) ECR 178 wherein Tribunal had held that natural justice was violated where appeal was dismissed for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 before the disposal of the stay application. He pleaded that the pre-deposit before the Tribunal may be dispensed with; and the matter be remanded to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), and he may dispose of the stay application filed before him on merits after observing principles of natural justice. Thereafter, dispose of this appeal in accordance with law.

2. Shri A.K. Singhal, the ld. JDR does not oppose the request of the ld. consultant in view of the submissions made by him and leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench.

3. We have heard both the sides and have gone into the facts and circumstances of the case. The appellant being not satisfied by the order passed by the Asstt. Collector had filed an appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) and a stay application was also filed vide letter did. 18.1.1991. In the stay application, the applicant has mentioned as to the Bank Guarantee and had also mentioned that the Revenue's interest was safeguarded. The Collector vide his letter did.

20.2.1991 had intimated the appellant to deposit the amount on or before 15.3.1991 and the appellant vide letter did. 4.3.1991 had again requested for the grant of personal hearing without insisting on the pre-deposit of the duly amount. The Collector did not grant personal hearing undoubtedly he was within his rights whether to accept the offer of the appellant for treating the bank guarantee as pre-deposit but in the present matter, he did not grant personal hearing.

Therefore, we are of the view that there was denial of principles of natural justice. This Tribunal has taken similar view in Honest Products Ltd. case reported in 1991 (35) ECR 178. Para 4 from the said judgment is reproduced below: We have already discussed the merits as to denial of principles of natural justice in the above paras. We are of the view point that when the stay application was pending before the Collr of Central Excise (Appeals), he should have first disposed of the stay application and then he could have dismissed the appeal for non-compliance of provisions of Section 35F. Accordingly we hold that there was denial of principles of natural justice. We set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) to redecide, the appeal, because the appellants have already deposited the duty amount and had complied with the provision of Section 35F. We further order that white re-deciding the same, Cottr of Central Excise (Appeals) shall observe principles of natural justice and also grant personal hearing to the appellants. Since the matter is very old, we shall appreciate if he re-decides the same within four months from the receipt of the order.

In view of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal and our observations, we are of the view that there was denial of principles of natural justice. We dispense with the pre-deposit of the duty amount for purposes of hearing of the present appeal and remand the matter to the Collector of Customs (Appeals). We further direct that the Collr of Customs (Appeals) shall dispose of the pending stay application as well as the appeal in accordance with law after observing principles of natural justice and shall also grant a personal hearing for the stay application as well as appeal.