2018 (3) TMI 1701 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - It is case of petitioners that without furnishing any proof of service of show cause notice in the year 2002, respondent heard the petitioners on 16-11-2016 and 2-3-2017 and passed the impugned Order-in-Original - alternative remedy - Held that - The undisputed aspect that emerged from the proceedings would unequivocally indicate that notice dated 22-8-2002 did not result into any order for quite sometime and as per say of respondent, it was consigned to the call book as per the circulars prevalent. The authority appeared to have proceeded with broad aspect of the matter that non-receipt of the said notice cannot be said to be established by the noticee and based thereupon, recording findings that concerned authorized person of the petitioner Company, who also is the signatory to this petition, did receive the notice and therefore, it cannot be in any manner correct on the part of the petitioners to say that there was no knowledge of existence of show cause notice dated 22-8-2002. This contention needs to be examined in light of the principles underlying the law, which is by now settled that inordinate delay in adjudication results into denial of principles of natural justice and that proposition cannot be said to be non est in the present proceedings. Alternative remedy - Held that - The ground of alternative remedy is also does not impress this Court in any manner, as there is clear violation of principles of natural justice, which cannot be overlooked by any authority, therefore, this ground is also not available to respondent. The notice dated 22-8-2002 as well as Order-in-Original dated 8-3-2017 passed by Respondent No. 2 deserve to be quashed and set aside - petition allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to Order-in-Original determining liability and penalty under Central Excise Act, 1985 based on show cause notice issued in 2002.

Analysis:
The petitioners, a Private Limited Company processing man-made fabrics under CETH 54.06, challenged the Order-in-Original dated 8-3-2017 passed by Respondent No. 2, determining liability and penalty based on a show cause notice issued in 2002. The petitioners claimed they were unaware of the 2002 notice until 2016, leading to a delayed response. The petitioners argued that the time gap between the notice and the order rendered the latter invalid, citing legal precedents like Lanvin Synthetics Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, which the authority did not consider. The petitioners also referenced several judgments, including Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, to support their case.

The petitioners contended that the authority's actions were unjustified and lacked legal basis due to the delay in proceedings related to the 2002 notice. They argued that the authority's attempt to revive the matter after 15 years was against established legal principles. The petitioners emphasized the lack of authority and power to resurrect old notices after such a prolonged period, relying on legal precedents like Alidhara Textile Engineers Ltd. v. Union of India. They sought to have the Order-in-Original quashed and set aside based on these arguments.

The respondent defended their actions by referring to Circulars dated 28-5-2003 & 26-4-2016, justifying the late proceedings based on the show cause notice from 2002 being kept in abeyance. The respondent argued that the petitioners did not demonstrate prejudice due to the delay or loss of evidence, unlike in Siddhi Vinayak Syntex Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India. The respondent claimed no obligation to inform the petitioners about the status of the proceedings, attributing contributory negligence to the petitioners for not being vigilant. The respondent suggested that if the court found fault in the authority's actions, the matter should be remanded for further consideration.

The court observed that the delay in adjudication and lack of receipt of the 2002 notice violated principles of natural justice. The court found that the respondent's arguments, including the ground for resisting the petition based on prejudice, were not tenable. Relying on legal precedents and established principles, the court quashed both the 2002 notice and the Order-in-Original dated 8-3-2017. The court emphasized the denial of natural justice and the impermissibility of resurrecting old notices after such a prolonged period, ultimately allowing the petition without costs.