2019 (7) TMI 56 - HC - Central Excise

Clandestine removal - failure of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - The court came to a conclusion that issuance of a notice would be an empty formality. The court was of the view that even where it found an infraction of principles of natural justice, the court had to address a further question as to whether any purpose would be served in remitting the case to the authority. The Court held that natural justice cannot be applied in a straight jacket formula. The jurisprudential basis of principles of natural justice was procedural fairness, accuracy of outcome leading to general social goals, etc. Nevertheless, there may be situations where a fair hearing would make no difference, meaning that a hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision maker. In such case, no legal duty to supply a hearing arises. These observations have no bearing on the facts of our case. The authority relied on materials without supplying copies to the assessees, that is to say, without enabling the latter to show effective cause against the materials or submit explanation. The remission of the matter in such a case is no empty formality, but a legal imperative.

Summary

Issues:
Excise Appeals challenging a common order passed by Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench, Mumbai on the ground of denial of principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Failure to comply with principles of natural justice
The Tribunal considered the case of M/s Twenty First Century Wire Rods Limited, suppliers of Steel Ingots, who were ordered to pay duties, interest, and penalties under the Central Excise Act 1944. The company and its directors challenged the order on grounds of non-compliance with natural justice principles, specifically regarding non-furnishing of relevant documents, non-return of seized documents, and rejection of their request for cross-examination. The Tribunal found no denial of natural justice in rejecting the cross-examination plea as the decision was based on other evidence. However, concerning non-furnishing of documents, the Tribunal observed that the duty liability assessment was based on documents not provided to the appellants, leading to a failure of natural justice. The Tribunal held that the matter should be remanded to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision.

Issue 2: Legal tenability of findings on natural justice
The Tribunal noted that the Adjudicating Authority did not consider the appellants' contentions regarding non-furnishing of documents. The Tribunal found that the most relevant documents for duty liability assessment were not provided to the appellants, impacting their ability to defend against the department's case. The Tribunal concluded that the failure to provide vital documents constituted a denial of natural justice, warranting remand to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision.

Issue 3: Applicability of legal precedents
The judgment of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Gauhati was cited, but it was found irrelevant to the present case. In the cited case, the Supreme Court held that natural justice may not apply in situations where a fair hearing would not change the ultimate conclusion reached by the decision maker. However, in the present case, the authority's reliance on materials without supplying copies to the assessees constituted a clear denial of natural justice, necessitating a remand for a fresh decision.

Conclusion:
Excise Appeals were dismissed except for Excise Appeal No. 1 of 2010, which was allowed due to the denial of natural justice. The Tribunal's order in the case of M/s Kundil Ispat Limited was set aside, remanding the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision. The judgment emphasized the importance of complying with principles of natural justice in adjudicating matters related to duty liabilities and penalties under the Central Excise Act 1944.