2013 (2) TMI 613 - HC - Central Excise

Manufacturing - Immovable - Proviso to Section 11A(1) of the Central Excise Act attracted relying on decision of CCE, Visakhapatnam v. Mehta and Co. 2011 (2) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA - assessee contested that as on the date when the impugned order was passed i.e. 31.1.2011, the Supreme Court did not pass such an order as it was passed on 10.2.2011 - Held that - There appears to be an error apparent on the face of the records, as the authority could not have relied upon a Supreme Court decision which has not been pronounced on the date when the impugned order was passed by the authority. Writ petition allowed and the matter is remanded to the respondent for passing fresh orders on merits - in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition for writ of Certiorari to quash Order-in-Original No.13/2013 passed by respondent.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to a petition seeking a writ of Certiorari to challenge Order-in-Original No.13/2013 passed by the respondent. The petitioner contested the reliance placed by the respondent on a Supreme Court decision in Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam v. Mehta and Co., 2011 (264) ELT 481 (SC) in paragraph (16) of the impugned order. The petitioner argued that the Supreme Court's decision was not pronounced on the date of the impugned order but on 10.2.2011, contrary to the date of the order. The High Court found an error apparent on the face of the records due to the reliance on a decision not yet pronounced, leading to the setting aside of the impugned order and remanding the matter to the respondent for fresh orders on merits.

The High Court's decision to allow the writ petition and set aside the impugned order was based on the finding of an error apparent on the face of the records. The authority's reliance on a Supreme Court decision that was not pronounced at the time of passing the impugned order was deemed incorrect. Consequently, the matter was remanded to the respondent for fresh orders on merits, with a directive to grant the petitioner an opportunity for a personal hearing. The judgment emphasized the importance of legal accuracy and timely application of relevant legal precedents in administrative decisions to ensure procedural fairness and justice.

In conclusion, the High Court's judgment in this case highlights the significance of accurate legal references and timely application of legal precedents in administrative orders. By setting aside the impugned order due to the error in relying on a Supreme Court decision not yet pronounced, the court upheld the principles of procedural fairness and granted the petitioner an opportunity for a fresh hearing before the respondent. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of adherence to legal procedures and precedents in administrative decision-making processes to uphold the rule of law and ensure justice for all parties involved.