2000 (11) TMI 151 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of goods under Tariff Item No. 23A.
2. Application of principles of natural justice.
3. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226.
4. Impact of judicial precedents on administrative orders.
5. Authority of appellate forums.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Goods under Tariff Item No. 23A:
The petitioner contended that the Central Excise Authority wrongfully assessed the goods under Tariff Item No. 23A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, as sheet glass and plate glass. The petitioner argued that their products, including figured glass, patterned glass, wared glass, and coloured figured glass, do not fall under the specified categories of Tariff Item No. 23A, which includes sheet glass, plate glass, laboratory glassware, glass shells, glass globes, chimneys for lamps and lanterns, or other glassware. The petitioner relied on a judgment from the Gujarat High Court (1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 608)) which held that such types of glass would not be covered by "Glass Sheets" or "Glass Plates" and should fall under the residuary Item No. 68 of the tariff items.

2. Application of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner argued that the order dated 17th January 1979, passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, was without jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice as no opportunity for representation was provided. The petitioner cited several judgments emphasizing that failure to follow natural justice renders an order void and that such failure cannot be cured by appellate proceedings. The court noted that the authority did not provide a hearing or reasons for its decision, which violated natural justice principles.

3. Jurisdiction of the Writ Court under Article 226:
The court held that there is no embargo on the Writ Court in entertaining the application directly without the intervention of an appeal. The Writ Court is not debarred from applying its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when principles of natural justice are at stake. The court emphasized that the authority should have given a full-length hearing and provided a reasoned order, especially in light of the Gujarat High Court's judgment.

4. Impact of Judicial Precedents on Administrative Orders:
The court criticized the authority for ignoring the Gujarat High Court's judgment, which provided clear guidelines on the classification of the types of glass in question. The court noted that the authority passed a mechanical order without considering the judicial precedent, which was a significant error. The court stressed the importance of adhering to judicial precedents to ensure consistency and fairness in administrative decisions.

5. Authority of Appellate Forums:
The respondents argued that the appellate forum has sufficient power to address any mistakes made by the assessing authority. They cited several judgments to support the contention that the appellate authority can enhance assessments, annul orders, and allow additional grounds to be raised. However, the court found this argument redundant in this case because the original order was passed without jurisdiction and in violation of natural justice, making it a nullity.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the impugned order dated 17th January 1979, passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, was without jurisdiction and violated principles of natural justice. Therefore, the writ petition succeeded, and the impugned order was set aside. The court directed the authority to provide a full-length hearing and pass a reasoned order within four weeks from the date of communication of the court's order. The court also emphasized that the Writ Court's jurisdiction was rightly invoked in this case. No order as to costs was passed.