(1.) THE appellant is in appeal along with an application for stay of operation of the impugned order wherein their appeal has been dismissed for non -compliance with the provisions of Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. Heard both sides.
(2.) THE contention of the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant is that by way adjudication order a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/ - was imposed on the appellant. The appellant challenged the same before the Commissioner (Appeals) and also filed a stay application. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) passed an ex parte order by directing the appellant to make a pre -deposit of 50% of the penalty imposed on the appellant without giving an opportunity of hearing to present their side. At the time of final hearing, the appellant pleaded before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) about their financial hardship but the same was not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned Advocate's contention is that the order directing them to make a pre -deposit of 50% of penalty is in gross violation of natural justice and consequently, the impugned order is also not sustainable. Therefore, he prays that the impugned order is to be set aside.
(3.) ON perusal of the records, I find that at the time of consideration of the stay application, no opportunity of hearing was given to the appellant to defend their stay application but they were directed to make a pre -deposit of 50% of penalty for considering their appeal. In these circumstances, I hold that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has violated the principles of natural justice therefore, the impugned order has no merit. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to first to decide the application for stay after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant to present their case and thereafter to decide the appeal on merits. With these terms, the appeal as well as the stay application are disposed of.