2018 (10) TMI 898 - HC - Central Excise

Principles of Natural Justice - the impugned order was passed ex parte - also the time to prefer the appeal, and the extended time which can be condoned by the Appellate Authority have expired - Held that - The impugned order is the result of show cause notice dated January 3, 2006. The show cause notice dated January 3, 2006 relates to the period from December 2002 to February 2003 - There is a previous show cause notice issued by the Department dated July 27, 2005 making similar allegations in respect of two products for the period from July 2002 to March 31, 2004. The earlier show cause notice dated July 27, 2005 did not result in any order of adjudication. Therefore, nothing prevented from the Department to issue the second show cause notice in respect of the same period and the same products. The respondents afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Three sets of dates for hearing were fixed for the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice. The petitioner did not avail of such opportunities. The authorities proceeded not to grant further adjournment on March 13, 2018 - no infirmity in the refusal of the authorities in not granting further adjournment given the conduct of the petitioner and given the number of opportunities granted to the petitioner to contest the claim. The impugned order cannot be said to have been passed ex parte - the petitioner is unable to substantiate the allegations of breach of principles of natural justice - Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order in original based on breach of natural justice principles.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged an order in original, claiming unawareness until recovery proceedings began, arguing breach of natural justice principles. The impugned order was ex parte, based on a show cause notice from 2006, with a previous notice from 2005 for the same products and period. The petitioner believed proceedings were dropped after 12 years. Despite multiple adjournment requests due to consultant unavailability, the adjudicating authority set hearing dates. The petitioner contended that such delay warrants a writ petition, citing a relevant case. The respondents argued sufficient notice was given, and the impugned order is appealable but a writ petition is maintainable for fundamental rights breach or jurisdictional issues.

The impugned order stemmed from a 2006 show cause notice regarding specific products for a defined period, with a prior notice from 2005 on similar products for a different period. The petitioner received multiple hearing opportunities but sought adjournments due to consultant unavailability. The adjudicating authority rejected further adjournment requests, leading to the impugned order. The court noted the petitioner's failure to substantiate breach of natural justice principles, finding no grounds for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the petitioner's inability to prove violations of natural justice principles. The judgment highlighted the importance of timely and substantiated claims in challenging administrative orders, ultimately upholding the impugned order's validity.