2014 (4) TMI 876 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of rebate claim - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that - Impugned order passed is in violation of the Principles of Natural Justice. The notice was issued on 01.09.2007. 7 days time has been allowed to file the reply. Certain documents had been relied upon in the show cause notice. In paragraph 19 of the writ petition, it is stated that the said show cause notice has been received by the petitioner on 3rd September, 2007, therefore, the petitioner has 7 days time to file the reply. According to the petitioner, the reply was filed on 10.09.2007. In paragraph 24 of the writ petition, it is stated that the reply of the show cause notice was filed on 10.09.2007. Para 24 of the writ petition has been replied by 24 of counter affidavit, wherein filing of reply on 10.09.2007 has not been disputed. It is unfortunate that even though, the reply was received on 10th September, 2007 but in the impugned order, it is alleged that no reply has been filed and no request has been made for the personal hearing - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
Challenging order passed by Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise
Violation of Principles of Natural Justice in passing the impugned order

Comprehensive Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.10.2007 passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Division Moradabad, Moradabad. The petitioner claimed that they had filed a reply to the show cause notice dated 01.09.2007 on 10.09.2007. However, the impugned order alleged that no reply was filed and no request for a personal hearing was made. The counsel for the State argued that since CENVAT Credit was wrongly availed on raw materials not received inside the factory premises, the rebate claim was rightfully rejected. The High Court examined the record and found that the impugned order violated the Principles of Natural Justice. Despite the petitioner filing a reply within the stipulated time, the order incorrectly stated otherwise. Therefore, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity for a proper hearing in accordance with the law. The Adjudicating Authority was instructed to issue a new order within six months from the date of the certified copy of the High Court's order.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the Principles of Natural Justice in administrative proceedings. The judgment highlighted the necessity for fair procedures and the right to be heard before making decisions that could significantly impact the rights of the parties involved.