2024 (5) TMI 819 - AT - Central Excise

Recovery of central excise duty - proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with interest and penalty - HELD THAT - The date 10.05.2022 has been wrongly mentioned instead of 25.07.2022. The rest of the averments in the said paragraph are the averments that are contained in the order dated 25.07.2022 - It is, therefore, more than apparent that the matter was heard by the Additional Commissioner on 25.07.2022 and not by Principal Commissioner, but the order has been passed by the Principal Commissioner. This clearly defies all principles of natural justice. The officer who was required to adjudicate the show cause notice should have heard the matter, but it clearly transpires from the records provided to the appellant by the department itself under the Right to Information Act that the matter was actually heard by the Additional Commissioner. This statement made by the Deputy Commissioner is clearly contradictory to the information supplied by the department itself to the appellant under the Right to Information Act. The Deputy Commissioner should have at least looked at the Ordersheet to find out who had actually heard the matter instead of just stating that the appellant has made an incorrect and baseless statement. The matter is remitted to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the challenge to an order passed by the Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, confirming the demand and recovery of central excise duty under the proviso to section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with interest and penalty, based on the show cause notice dated 02.07.2010.

Issue 1 - Incorrect Adjudication Authority:
The appellant contested that the Principal Commissioner had not actually heard the matter, as the Additional Commissioner conducted the hearing on 25.07.2022. The appellant provided evidence from the Right to Information Act, including the order sheet and hearing notice, to support this claim. Despite the appellant's submissions, the Deputy Commissioner claimed the appellant's objections were baseless, contradicting the information provided under the Right to Information Act.

Issue 2 - Procedural Violation and Natural Justice:
The Tribunal found that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner, despite not hearing the matter, violated principles of natural justice. The discrepancy between the date mentioned in the order and the actual hearing date raised serious concerns about the fairness of the adjudication process. The Tribunal set aside the Principal Commissioner's order and remitted the matter to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, emphasizing the importance of due process and proper adjudication.

Issue 3 - Time Limit for Proceedings:
The appellant also argued that considering about 14 years had passed since the issuance of the show cause notice, no further proceedings should be pursued. While the appellant cited relevant legal precedents to support this argument, the Tribunal noted that the decision on this aspect would be within the purview of the Adjudicating Authority to determine in accordance with the law.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found that the order passed by the Principal Commissioner was based on incorrect adjudication and lacked adherence to principles of natural justice. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Adjudicating Authority for a fresh decision, allowing the appellant to present all relevant submissions concerning the show cause notice for proper consideration.