ORDER
I.J. Rao, Member (T)
1. We heard Sh.H.P. Arora, the learned Advocate for the appellants and Smt. Nisha Chaturvedi, the learned SDR for the respondent. Shri Arora submits that it is a fact that there were 3 opportunities of personal hearing on 21.4.1987, 18.8.1987 and 14.9.1987. He explained that on the first date he could not proceed to Meerut on account of serious local disturbances and on the remaining two dates he requested adjournment as he had matters coming up before this Tribunal. Smt. Nisha Chaturvedi, the learned SDR submitted that in both instances the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted an application for adjournment in the very last moment whereas he could have made a request much earlier. Smt. Chaturvedi does not oppose if the matter is to be remanded to the Collector to afford a hearing to the appellants.
2. Shri Arora also submitted that over 3 lakhs of ruppes have been adjudged payable and the appellant is not in a position to deposit this amount. He, however, submits that the method by which the amount was fixed is totally unjust as one bill was taken as the basis of calculation and the amount mentioned therein was multiplied by 150, the number of bills issued by the appellants. We have considered the submissions of both sides. The Collector in his order observed that obviously the appellant was adopting dilatory practices to delay proceedings. On hearing the appellants, it appears to us that on the last two occasions the Learned Counsel was busy in the Tribunal and could not attend to the hearing before the Collector. However, he could have, as suggested by the Learned SDR, made an application much earlier without waiting till the last moment. All the same, we feel that in view of the complexity of this matter and the amount involved, it would be in the interest of justice that a fresh order is passed after affording a hearing to the appellants. In view of this, we hold that the impugned order as worded cannot be sustained. In this view, we grant waiver of pre-deposit of the adjudged amounts of duty and penalty.
3. The appeal also was heard with the consent of both parties. In view of our ob-servations above, the impugned order cannot be sustained. It is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Collector for a fresh adjudication after giving one reasonable opportunity to the appellants to be heard in person. The opportunity may consist of a notice with at least 3 weeks’ time before the date of hearing. The stay application and the appeal are disposed of accordingly. (Pronounced in open court).