2007 (8) TMI 207 - AT - Central Excise

Proceedings initiated by an unsigned SCN cannot be held to have any basis in the eyes of law Necessary evidence are there on record to show that SCN was not signed so proceedings are ab initio void

Summary

Issues: Lack of notice for initiating proceedings, legality of the orders passed without proper notice, validity of the proceeding under Section 11A, sustainability of the proceeding.

The legal judgment revolves around the issue raised by the appellant regarding the lack of notice for initiating the proceedings, claiming the entire proceeding to be void ab initio due to the absence of a proper notice. The appellant's representative highlighted the unsigned show cause notice served on the date of the hearing, contending that such a notice was invalid and prejudiced the appellant's case. The appellant argued that the authorities below had acted unlawfully by legalizing the illegality through the impugned order and passing adjudication without a show cause notice. The appellant emphasized that the orders were a departure from the show cause notice and were non-existent, urging for the quashing of the orders due to grave errors of law. The appellant further pointed out the violation of Section 11A, stating that the proceeding, being void ab initio, was unsustainable on legal and limitation grounds.

During the proceedings, the Revenue's representative supported the orders of the authorities below, opposing the appellant's contentions. However, after a thorough hearing and examination of the records, the Tribunal found that the pre-deposit was dispensable, and the appeal required a detailed consideration based on the appellant's arguments. Consequently, the appeal was taken up for disposal through a common order.

Upon careful consideration of the submissions made by the appellant's consultant, supported by relevant evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded that the proceeding was indeed void ab initio. Emphasizing the principle of justice, the Tribunal declared that a proceeding which is non est has no legal standing. The Tribunal found no factual basis or legal validity in the proceeding, agreeing with the appellant's argument that the entire proceeding against them was void ab initio. Therefore, based on the factual and legal analysis, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellant, declaring the proceeding as null and void.