Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2023 (5) TMI HC This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2023 (5) TMI 1261 - HC - Central Excise


Issues involved:
The petitioners sought quashing of Order-in-Originals confirming service tax demand and penalty. They alleged violation of natural justice as no personal hearing was granted.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Violation of natural justice
- The petitioners alleged that the impugned orders were passed without granting them a personal hearing, violating the principle of natural justice.
- The Show Cause Notices were issued based on a search conducted at the premises of the company, alleging non-payment of Central Excise Duty.
- Despite attempts to serve notices, the company had shifted, and the new management had taken over, which was communicated to the authorities.
- The respondent authorities proceeded with adjudication despite being informed of the change in management and the inability to serve notices at the old address.
- The Court found that the impugned orders were passed without complying with the principles of natural justice.
- The Court set aside the impugned orders and directed the petitioners to file their replies with supporting documents within four weeks before the Adjudicating Authority.
- The matter was restored before the Adjudicating Authority for further proceedings, with a direction for a final order to be passed within four weeks from the filing of the reply.

Significant legal points:
- The Court highlighted the importance of complying with principles of natural justice in adjudicatory proceedings.
- The Court emphasized that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to present their case and file a reply before the Adjudicating Authority.
- The impugned orders were deemed appealable under Section 35B of the Act, but the Court intervened due to the lack of compliance with natural justice principles.

Separate Judgment:
No separate judgment was delivered by the judges in this case.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates