2017 (7) TMI 1303 - HC - Central Excise

Violation of principles of natural justice - lack of jurisdiction - case of the petitioner is that he appeared before the authority in August 2003 and submitted written submissions and the personal hearing was adjourned to September 2003 and even assuming that the personal hearing was held on 18.09.2003 the impugned order could not have been passed on 31.08.2003 - HELD THAT - There is no explanation for this gross error committed by the authority as no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. This Court is satisfied that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Since this Court is convinced that the impugned order is to be set aside on the above ground the other issue regarding jurisdiction is left out. The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to take a fresh decision in the matter after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner - Petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order confirming duty payment and imposing penalty under Central Excise Act, 1944 based on violation of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction.

Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the respondent confirming the payment of duty and imposing a penalty under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that there was a gross violation of principles of natural justice as he had appeared for a personal hearing and submitted written submissions. The petitioner argued that the order could not have been passed on the date mentioned by the respondent. The Court observed that the respondent recorded that the petitioner failed to appear for the personal hearing, which contradicted the petitioner's claim of attending the hearing and submitting written submissions. The Court noted the lack of explanation for this discrepancy and concluded that the impugned order was passed in violation of natural justice. As a result, the Court set aside the order on this ground.

2. Lack of Jurisdiction:
The petitioner also raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction, stating that the Assessing Officer's jurisdiction had been transferred to the Joint Commissioner after a certain date, making the respondent incompetent to pass the order. However, since the Court found in favor of the petitioner on the violation of natural justice, it did not delve into the jurisdictional aspect. The Court directed the matter to be remanded back to the concerned authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the need to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. The Court did not award any costs in this matter, and subsequently, the related petition was closed.

In summary, the High Court of Madras allowed the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner challenging the order confirming duty payment and penalty imposition under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court found a violation of natural justice in the order passed by the respondent, as the petitioner's claim of attending a personal hearing and submitting written submissions contradicted the respondent's record. As a result, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.