2021 (5) TMI 191 - HC - Central Excise

SVLDRS - seeking to issue Form SVLRDS 3 for the amount stated - seeking an opportunity to present its case by providing a personal hearing - HELD THAT - The impugned order which is sketchy in nature and does not assign adequate reasons, is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the respondent department to reconsider the case of the petitioner by taking into account the judgement of Gujarat High Court in the case of MESSRS SYNPOL PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA 2020 (9) TMI 257 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT , where it was held that declaration filed by the petitioners and other similarly situated persons are required to be considered by the designated committee without payment of redemption fine by the declarant. A fresh decision be taken by the department expeditiously - petition allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
Petitioner's SVLDRS application rejection, issuance of Form SVLRDS 3, opportunity for personal hearing, adequacy of reasons in the impugned order.

Analysis:

The petitioner sought relief through a writ to quash the rejection of their SVLDRS application and to direct the respondents to issue Form SVLRDS 3 for the stated amount. The petitioner challenged the rejection citing a vague reason of "ground of ineligibility." The petitioner's counsel referred to a Gujarat High Court judgment in a similar case, which was upheld by the Supreme Court, arguing that the petitioner's case aligns with the precedent. The respondents' counsel acknowledged the dismissal of the SLP against the Gujarat High Court judgment and did not provide any distinguishing factors between the cases. The court noted the sketchy nature of the impugned order and remitted the matter back to the department for reconsideration in light of the Gujarat High Court judgment. The court directed the department to make a fresh decision promptly and to grant a personal hearing if the petitioner can demonstrate a legal basis for it.

The judgment emphasized the need for adequate reasons in decisions and the importance of following relevant legal precedents. By setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case for reconsideration, the court ensured that the petitioner's case would be reviewed in line with established judicial decisions. The court's decision highlighted the principle of fairness and the right to a proper hearing in administrative proceedings. The judgment did not delve into the merits of the case but focused on procedural aspects and the application of legal principles to ensure a just outcome for the petitioner. Overall, the judgment underscored the significance of legal reasoning, consistency in decision-making, and adherence to judicial precedents in administrative matters.