ORDER
Harish Chander, Member (J)
1. M/s. Honest Products, Rajkot, has filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Bombay. The said appeal was received in the Bombay Registry, and thereafter transferred to the Tribunal in the West Regional Bench vide Stay Order No. 34/88-WRB dated 5th February, 1988, and the Bench had ordered to deposit Rs. 40,965.84 and Rs. 9,282.00 totalling Rs. 50.247.84/. Shri B.B. Gujral, learned Advocate, pleaded that the amount was duly deposited in S.B.S. in State Bank of Saurashtra, Main Branch, Rajkot on 23rd March, 1988 and had complied with the order passed by the Tribunal. Shri Gujral pleaded that the appellant being aggrieved from the order passed by Assistant Collector had filed an appeal before the Appellate Collector of Central Excise as well as stay application, and the stay application was pending and without disposing of the stay application, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise has disposed of the appeal for non-compliance of provision of Section 35F, and there was denial of principles of natural justice. He pleaded that the early hearing be ordered and appeal may be disposed of. Alternatively, he also pleaded that if the other side has got no objection, the appeal be heard.
2. Shri B.S. Ganu, learned SDR, who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, stated that since there was non-compliance of provision of Section 35F, the Collector (Appeals) was within his jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal, but fairly stated that in case the Bench is inclined to grant early hearing of the appeal, he has also got no objection to the learned Advocate’s prayer for the hearing of the appeal today itself. Shri Ganu stated that alternate adjournment may be granted. However, he leaves it to the discretion of the Bench.
3. We have heard both the sides. The facts and circumstances of the case justify the grant of early hearing. We do not find any justification for the grant of adjournment. We accpet the prayer of the applicant, and after accepting the prayer for early hearing, we had confronted the SDR whether he has got any objection to the learned Advocate’s prayer for the hearing of the appeal on merits today, on the learned Advocate’s prayer for denial of principles of natural justice. To this, Shri Ganu, learned SDR, has stated that he has got no objection to the hearing of the appeal today.
4. We have already discussed the merits as to denial of principles of natural justice in the above paras. We are of the view that when the stay application was pending before the Collector 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 provision of Section 35-F, 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 re-decide the appeal, because the appellants have already deposited the duty amount and had complied with the provision of Section 35-F. We further order that while re-deciding the same, Collector 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.