2015 (10) TMI 687 - HC - Central Excise

Denial of exemption claim - Levy of excise duty - unit is not a new unit and it is old one and the Industrial Policy does not apply to the unit - Held that - It may be that the appellant has the alternative remedy of appeal; however, the matter is admitted and pending since 2005. At this stage, it may not be proper to direct the appellant to exhaust the remedy of appeal. The illegality committed by the respondents is palpably glaring. The notices are issued without giving opportunity of hearing and without complying with the order of the appellate authority as well as the order of Tribunal. - Appeal disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Exemption of Excise Duty on 100% Polyester yarn under Industrial Policy, refusal of exemption by Assistant Commissioner, appeal process, violation of natural justice in issuing demand notices, legality of demand notices, alternative remedy of appeal, quashing of notices, direction for a fresh hearing by Assistant Commissioner.

Analysis:
The judgment revolves around the appellant's claim for exemption of Excise Duty on 100% Polyester yarn under the Industrial Policy. Initially, the Assistant Commissioner denied the exemption, citing that the unit was not new and therefore not eligible under the Industrial Policy. The Commissioner, on appeal, overturned this decision, prompting the Revenue to approach the Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the Assistant Commissioner had not followed the rules of natural justice and deemed the demand illegal, instructing a reevaluation with proper procedures. However, the Assistant Commissioner issued new demand notices without adhering to natural justice or the Tribunal's directive, leading to the filing of the present writ petition.

Despite the availability of an alternative remedy through appeal, the court acknowledged the prolonged pendency of the matter since 2005 and deemed it inappropriate to insist on exhausting the appeal process. The court highlighted the blatant illegality in the issuance of demand notices without affording the appellant a fair hearing, contrary to the orders of the appellate authority and the Tribunal. Consequently, the court quashed the impugned notices issued and directed the Assistant Commissioner to conduct a fresh hearing and issue an order in compliance with the law, emphasizing the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice in administrative proceedings.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the appeal by upholding the appellant's right to a fair hearing and a lawful decision-making process. The judgment serves as a reminder of the significance of procedural fairness and adherence to legal requirements in administrative actions, ensuring that parties are given a meaningful opportunity to present their case and that decisions are made in accordance with the law.