2021 (7) TMI 1045 - HC - Central Excise

Violation of principles of natural justice - service of notice - adjudication procedure under Section 33A(1) and Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944 not followed - HELD THAT - A perusal of the paper book reveals that it is the case of the Revenue Department that though summons had been served upon the petitioner on 17th September, 2018, yet it had neither appeared before the respondent Department nor any documents had been filed on its behalf. It was only after the respondent-Department contacted the petitioner s auditor, that he appeared and made a statement. Later also efforts were made to serve the petitioner with notices, however, the petitioner was not available at the given address. Keeping in view the fact that the demand is a high-pitched one and subsequent notices issued by the respondent to the petitioner had not been served upon the petitioner or its authorised representative before the hearing, this Court in the interest of justice, grants last and final opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the respondent no.2 on 2nd and 9th August, 2021 at 11.00 A.M., subject to payment of costs of ₹ 2,50,000/- to Delhi High Court Bar Association Pandemic Relief Fund within a week. Petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
Challenge to order confirming demand of service tax and penalties; Adherence to adjudication procedure and principles of natural justice; Liability of service tax on land procurement; Granting last opportunity to appear before respondent.

Analysis:
The judgment delivered by the Delhi High Court involved several key issues. Firstly, the petition challenged an order confirming a substantial demand of service tax and penalties. The petitioner sought a fair hearing and adherence to the Principles of Natural Justice. The counsel argued that the impugned order did not follow the adjudication procedure under Section 33A(1) and Section 37C of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and also contended that service tax was not applicable on land procurement without performance of the agreement.

Upon reviewing the case, the Court noted that the Revenue Department had served summons to the petitioner, but the petitioner failed to appear or submit any documents. Subsequent efforts to contact the petitioner were also unsuccessful. Despite this, the Court acknowledged the importance of ensuring a fair process and decided to grant a final opportunity to the petitioner to appear before the respondent. The Court directed the petitioner to pay costs to the Delhi High Court Bar Association Pandemic Relief Fund and appear on specified dates.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ petition and pending application, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to comply with the given directions. The order was to be uploaded on the website promptly, and a copy was to be forwarded to the counsel via email. This judgment highlights the significance of procedural fairness and the opportunity for parties to present their case effectively in legal proceedings.