2005 (6) TMI 322 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues: Commissioner issuing show cause notice to the appellant after adjudication against the company, imposition of penalty on the appellant without fresh cause of action, legal sustainability of the impugned order, application of principles of constructive res judicata, waiver of show cause action against the appellant.

Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the Commissioner issuing a show cause notice to the appellant after the company had already been adjudicated upon for contravention of Central Excise Rules. The appellant argued that since the company had accepted the contravention, paid the duty and penalty, and the matter was considered extinguished, there was no fresh cause of action to issue a notice to the appellant. The appellant contended that the Commissioner's action was not legally sustainable due to the lack of a new show cause of action against the appellant.

2. The appellant further argued that once an adjudication has attained finality, it cannot be reopened against the appellant to avoid multiple legal proceedings. Citing legal precedents, the appellant emphasized the importance of preventing multiplicity of proceedings and ensuring finality to an issue that has already been decided between the same parties. The appellant highlighted that the principle of no man being the judge of his own cause was violated in this case.

3. The appellant relied on the principle of constructive res judicata, citing a decision involving Steel Authority of India Ltd., to support the argument that an adjudication is conclusive not only on the actual matter determined but also on every other matter that could have been litigated and decided. The appellant contended that since the Commissioner failed to issue a show cause notice to the appellant, the principles of constructive res judicata should apply, preventing the reopening of the matter through a fresh notice.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the case records and relevant case laws, found that the Commissioner's failure to issue a show cause notice to the appellant simultaneously implied a waiver of the show cause action against the appellant. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the impugned order was not legally sustainable. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant, emphasizing the legal position regarding the waiver of show cause action against the appellant.