2021 (4) TMI 19 - HC - Central Excise

Classification of goods - fertilizers for the purpose of export - classified under Chapter 31 or under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act? - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It is well settled that what is not finding place in the show cause notice cannot be introduced for the first time in the final order. That would amount to taking the noticee/assessee by surprise. This is clear violation of principles of natural justice. The assessing the authority is amenable to granting personal hearing to the petitioner on 05.04.2021. On the said date, the petitioner shall appear before the authority - Petition allowed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act
2. Violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order

Analysis:
1. Classification of goods under Central Excise Tariff Act:
The petitioner, engaged in trading, importing, and manufacturing fertilizers for export, challenged the duty imposed by the respondent under Chapter 38 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The petitioner contended that the goods should be classified under Chapter 31. The authority argued that the issue of classification is not within the purview of writ jurisdiction. However, the petitioner's counsel focused on the violation of natural justice in the proceedings. The counsel pointed out that reliance on a pamphlet by the assessing authority, which was not part of the show cause notice or personal hearing, was unjust. The court held that introducing new evidence in the final order without prior notice violates natural justice principles. Consequently, the impugned order was quashed on this ground.

2. Violation of principles of natural justice in the impugned order:
The court emphasized that any information not included in the show cause notice cannot be introduced for the first time in the final order as it would surprise the noticee/assessee. This action was deemed a clear violation of natural justice principles. As a result, the court interfered with the impugned order and directed the assessing authority to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner without issuing a separate notice. The petitioner was instructed to present their contentions and relevant materials, which the authority would consider independently before passing orders in accordance with the law. The court clarified that its interference was limited to the aspect of natural justice violation and did not delve into the merits of the case. The writ petition was allowed, with no costs imposed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed accordingly.