2014 (2) TMI 402 - HC - Central Excise

Rejection of remission claim - Pecuniary liability - Held that - Petitioner s claim for remission is liable to be considered on its own merits. For enabling the petitioner to address the authority i.e. Respondent No. 2 on merits, it was necessary that the petitioner should have been given an intimation of hearing. The impugned order, prima facie, appears to have been passed without any formal hearing - rejection of remission would attract pecuniary liability hearing to the petitioner would have advanced the cause of justice - we set aside the impugned order dated 9-11-2012. The case be relegated to the stage of hearing - We, therefore, direct that the application for remission Annexure F to the petition would be heard and decided by Respondent No. 2 after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on all points - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Petitioner's application for remission of excise duty, rejection of the application, necessity of a formal hearing, availability of an alternate remedy, fairness in decision-making process.

Analysis:

1. Petitioner's Application for Remission of Excise Duty:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing Pan Masala and Gutka, opted for the Compounded Levy Scheme for excise duty payment. Due to a policy change by the Government of Maharashtra, the petitioner had to suspend manufacturing activities, leading to a substantial pecuniary liability. The petitioner applied for remission of excise duty on goods that could not be sold due to legal barriers. The application was rejected, prompting the petitioner to seek re-hearing by dispensing with the alternate remedy.

2. Rejection of the Application and Necessity of Formal Hearing:
The respondents argued that the application for remission was belated and not bona fide, as it coincided with the threat of coercive recovery. They contended that the concession of remission did not apply to cases under compounded levy of taxes and labeled the petitioner as a habitual defaulter. However, the High Court observed that the impugned order seemed to lack a formal hearing, which was crucial for a fair decision, especially considering the significant pecuniary liability involved.

3. Availability of an Alternate Remedy:
The respondents opposed the writ petition, emphasizing the existence of an efficacious alternate remedy. Despite this, the High Court found merit in the petitioner's claim for remission and highlighted the importance of allowing the petitioner to address the authority on the merits of the case. The Court noted that a rejection of remission would lead to a substantial pecuniary liability, underscoring the need for a fair hearing to advance the cause of justice.

4. Fairness in Decision-Making Process:
In response to the Court's query, the respondents agreed to provide a fresh hearing and decide the case in accordance with the law, addressing all points raised in the application for remission. The Court accepted this commitment and set aside the impugned order, directing the case to be relegated to the stage of hearing. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to make additional submissions and present evidence during the hearing, ensuring a fair and comprehensive consideration of the remission application.

5. Conclusion:
The High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing the need for a formal hearing and fair decision-making process in matters involving substantial pecuniary liabilities. By setting aside the initial order and allowing for a fresh hearing, the Court ensured that the application for remission would be thoroughly examined, with all points kept open for consideration. The judgment made no adjudication on the respective claims and contentions, highlighting the impartial and procedural nature of the Court's intervention.

Judgment: The High Court of Bombay, through the detailed analysis of the issues involved, emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and the right to a formal hearing in matters of substantial pecuniary liability. The judgment underscored the significance of allowing parties to present their case effectively and ensuring a comprehensive consideration of all relevant factors before reaching a decision.