2018 (10) TMI 1937 - HC - Central Excise

Validity of SCN - Time limitation - HELD THAT - The earlier decisions of the appellate authority not contained comments/opinion etc., but decision was rendered after considering relevant aspects namely, facts as well as law and in turn the competent authority was directed to decide the case based on observations made therein by the appellate authority. The matter deserves consideration, hence, Rule returnable on 20.12.2018.

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the impugned order-in-original
2. Allegations of time-barred show cause notice
3. Lack of specific answers in the affidavit-in-reply
4. Examination of relevant orders passed by appellate authority/CESTAT
5. Interpretation of earlier decisions by the appellate authority

Validity of the impugned order-in-original:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order-in-original on various grounds, highlighting that the adjudicating authority failed to consider the favorable earlier orders in the petitioner's case. The attention was drawn to the Commissioner's orders from 1998 and 2003, which supported the petitioner's position. The court noted that the adjudicating authority dismissed these earlier orders as mere observations, leading to the issuance of a notice returnable on a specified date. The respondents were restrained from taking coercive action, and direct service was permitted.

Allegations of time-barred show cause notice:
The petitioner contended that the show cause notice was invalid due to being time-barred. However, the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondents did not provide specific answers to these submissions. This lack of specific response raised concerns regarding the validity of the notice and the procedural aspects of the case.

Examination of relevant orders passed by appellate authority/CESTAT:
The court examined the relevant orders passed by the appellate authority and CESTAT, along with previous High Court orders in a related case. The show cause notice from 1999 was a common thread in these orders. The court observed that the appellate authority's decisions were based on a thorough consideration of facts and law, directing the competent authority to decide the case based on the observations made in those decisions.

Interpretation of earlier decisions by the appellate authority:
The court found that the earlier decisions of the appellate authority were not mere comments or opinions but comprehensive decisions considering all relevant aspects, including facts and law. The court deemed it necessary to further consider the matter, setting a rule returnable date. The ad-interim relief granted was to continue until the final disposal of the case, emphasizing the importance of a thorough examination of the previous decisions in reaching a just conclusion.