2019 (6) TMI 1390 - HC - Central Excise

Appealable order or not - Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act 1944 - Clandestine removal - Fire fighting Vehicles - HELD THAT - Let notice be issued to the respondents returnable on 24.07.2019. The respondent No.2 shall be served directly. Notice to the respondent No.1 shall go through the court.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST - Demand confirmation, interest recovery, penalty imposition, appealability, natural justice violation.

Analysis:
The writ-application challenges an order by the Commissioner confirming a demand of Central Excise duty, interest recovery, and penalty imposition on the petitioner for clandestine clearance of Fire fighting Vehicles. The order is appealable under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before the Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner argues that key submissions regarding the fabrication process of Fire Fighting Vehicles were not addressed in the impugned order, violating principles of natural justice. Citing precedents, the petitioner contends that the matter should be entertained without requiring an appeal to the Tribunal.

The impugned order by the Commissioner details the confirmed demand of Central Excise duty, interest recovery, and penalty imposition on the petitioner. The penalty amount is subject to reduction if the duty, interest, and penalty are paid within 30 days. Additionally, a penalty is imposed on the Director of the petitioner company under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The petitioner's argument revolves around the non-consideration of reports certifying the absence of certain equipment in the fabrication process, which is crucial to the exemption claimed.

Considering the petitioner's submissions, the High Court issues notice to the respondents for a future hearing. Acknowledging a strong prima facie case made by the petitioner, the Court directs the respondents not to take coercive steps for recovery until the next hearing date. The Court emphasizes direct service for the respondent No.2 and court-mediated service for respondent No.1. The Court's decision reflects a cautious approach towards the recovery process pending further legal proceedings, ensuring fairness and due process for the petitioner.