9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing. 2. Whether the petitioner should be compelled to avail alternative remedy. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice due to lack of personal hearing The petitioners, manufacturers of Phthalic Anhydride and Maleic Anhydride, were utilizing Marlotherm as an input under the Modvat Scheme. A show cause notice was issued challenging the credit availed on Marlotherm. The first respondent dropped the proceedings, allowing the credit. However, the Collector of Central Excise reviewed this order and directed the first respondent to apply to the second respondent, who subsequently allowed the appeal without granting a personal hearing to the petitioners. The court noted that the petitioner had fully succeeded before the first respondent, and thus had no reason to file an appeal or cross-objections. Sections 35A(1) and 35B(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, provide for an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and allow cross-objections by the respondent, respectively. Since the petitioner was not aggrieved by the initial order, there was no requirement for them to seek a personal hearing. The court emphasized that the principles of natural justice demand an opportunity of hearing, especially in quasi-judicial proceedings. The second respondent's failure to provide this opportunity rendered the order invalid. The court cited several precedents, including Union Of India v. Col. J.N. Sinha and Institute of Chartered Accountants of India v. L.K. Ratna, to support the necessity of adhering to natural justice principles. Issue 2: Whether the petitioner should be compelled to avail alternative remedy The court acknowledged that while alternative remedies exist, they are not an absolute bar to entertaining a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The rule is one of policy and discretion rather than law. In cases where natural justice is violated, the superior court has a duty to intervene. The court referenced U.P. State v. Mohd. Nooh, which supports the issuance of a writ of certiorari in cases where procedural errors are so glaring that they cannot be rectified through appeal or revision. Given the violation of natural justice in this case, the court found it unnecessary to compel the petitioner to seek alternative remedies. Conclusion: The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 8-4-1994 was quashed, and the case was remitted to the second respondent for fresh disposal on merits, ensuring an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. No costs were awarded.
|
