1989 (1) TMI 141 - HC - Central Excise

Writ jurisdiction - Written arguments after hearing - Adjournment in adjudication proceedings - Natural justice

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise.
2. Limitation period for demand.
3. Violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Availability of alternative remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
5. Request for adjournment and submission of written representation.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise:
The petitioner initially raised an objection regarding the jurisdiction of the Collector of Central Excise to adjudicate the matter. This objection was raised in the preliminary reply dated 22-6-1983. The Department considered this objection and informed the petitioner on 5-3-1984 that the request for a decision on the preliminary objections was not acceded to and that the petitioner should argue its case on merits.

2. Limitation period for demand:
The petitioner also contended that the demand was hit by the limitation period. This was another ground raised in the preliminary reply. However, the Department did not provide a separate ruling on this preliminary issue and instead directed the petitioner to address the merits of the case.

3. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioner argued that the principles of natural justice were violated as they were not given a proper opportunity to submit a written representation. The petitioner's counsel contended that the respondent was not prepared to wait until Monday morning (13-6-1988) to receive the written representations and then pass orders. The court noted that the hearing was conducted on 10-6-1988, and the order was dictated and typed on the same day. The written representation submitted on 13-6-1988 was deemed of no use as the order had already been passed.

4. Availability of alternative remedies under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
The Department argued that the petitioner should have exhausted the alternative remedies provided under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, including approaching the Tribunal. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, which held that the question of adjournment and other procedural matters should be raised in an appeal under the Act. The court also cited an unreported decision of the Division Bench in W.A. No. 257 of 1988, which emphasized the necessity of utilizing the remedies provided under the Act before approaching the court.

5. Request for adjournment and submission of written representation:
The petitioner sought an adjournment on 10-6-1988 to file a written representation. The request for adjournment was refused, and the respondent proceeded with the hearing and passed the order on the same day. The Department claimed that multiple hearings had already been given and that the petitioner had ample time to prepare a written representation. The court held that the decision to grant or refuse an adjournment is within the discretion of the presiding officer and that the refusal to grant an adjournment did not constitute a violation of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner had alternative remedies available under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and that the principles of natural justice were not violated. The court emphasized that procedural matters, such as the refusal to grant an adjournment, should be addressed through the appellate mechanisms provided under the Act. The writ petition was not maintainable, and the petitioner was directed to pursue the alternative remedies available.

← Previous Next →