2019 (7) TMI 491 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - appealable order or not - compliance with the requirement of pre-deposit - HELD THAT - Since the principal submissions going to the root of the matter have not been dealt with by the Commissioner the impugned order could be termed as violative of the principles of natural justice. If that be so according to Mr. Dave this petition may be entertained without asking the writ-applicant to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. Let notice be issued to the respondents returnable on 24.07.2019. The respondent No.2 shall be served directly. Notice to the respondent No.1 shall go through the court.

Summary

Issues: Challenge to order passed by Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST - Appealability of order - Violation of principles of natural justice.

Analysis:
1. Challenge to Order: The writ-application challenges the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Bhavnagar, confirming a demand of Rs. 89,23,350 and imposing penalties on M/s Newage Industries for clandestine clearance of goods. The order also imposes penalties on an individual and confirms a demand of Rs. 1,77,33,712 for clearance of Fire Fighting Vehicles. The writ-applicant argues that the impugned order is appealable under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and appeals should be made before the Appellate Tribunal. However, the applicant contends that the order violates principles of natural justice as the key submissions have not been addressed by the Commissioner.

2. Appealability of Order: The impugned order is appealable under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, before the Appellate Tribunal. The applicant's counsel argues that the order should be challenged directly in the High Court due to the failure of the Commissioner to address crucial submissions, which the counsel claims is a violation of natural justice. The counsel relies on case law to support the argument that the petition should be entertained without requiring an appeal to the Tribunal.

3. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice: The applicant contends that the impugned order fails to address the principal submissions crucial to the case, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The counsel highlights that the Commissioner did not consider reports and certificates from qualified engineers stating that no "equipment" was used in the fabrication of Fire Fighting Vehicles. Due to this omission, the counsel argues that the order is deficient and should be considered violative of natural justice principles. The counsel relies on relevant case law to support this argument.

4. Interim Relief: Considering the submissions made by the applicant's counsel, the Court finds that a strong prima facie case has been established for an interim order in favor of the writ-applicant. Therefore, the Court directs the respondents not to take any coercive steps regarding the recovery of duty, interest, and penalty amounts until the next returnable date. Direct service of the order is permitted for compliance.

This detailed analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, addressing the challenge to the order, appealability, violation of natural justice, and the interim relief granted by the Court.