2024 (12) TMI 669 - HC - Central Excise

Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy - Compliance with directions issued by the Customs Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order - absence of the cross-examination of the witnesses - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT - It was incumbent upon the respondent No. 2 to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal irrespective of the delay in conduct of cross-examination. The Tribunal has categorically observed that the adjudicating authority is to grant cross-examination of the persons as has been indicated in paragraph No. 4 of the order and subsequently grant four weeks time to the petitioners to file a detailed reply. Both the directions of the Tribunal are not followed by the respondent No. 2 in letter and spirit and as such the impugned order-in-original is liable to be quashed and set aside only on that ground. Availability of alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned order - HELD THAT - It is true that alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the impugned order would be to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal however as the respondent No. 2 has failed to comply with the directions issued by the Tribunal and the matter is pending before this Court since 2022 the matter is heard on merits and requested learned advocate of Respondent to take instructions for disposal of the matter if remand is made by this Court. The impugned order-in-original is hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is again remanded back to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 shall comply with the directions of the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the Tribunal and as the matter is very old give priority to the same and pass fresh denovo order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and compliance of the directions given by the Tribunal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Petition disposed off by way of remand.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with directions issued by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal in the impugned order.
2. Violation of the principle of natural justice due to lack of cross-examination of witnesses.
3. Quashing and setting aside the Order in Original dated 19.2.2021.
4. Remand of the matter back to the respondent No. 2 for fresh adjudication.

Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioners challenged the impugned order for failing to comply with the directions issued by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The Tribunal had remanded the matter back for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for cross-examination, detailed replies, and personal hearings. However, the respondent No. 2 did not adhere to these directions, leading to non-compliance with the Tribunal's order.

Issue 2: The petitioners argued that the absence of cross-examination of witnesses in the impugned order amounted to a violation of the principle of natural justice. They contended that the respondent No. 2 did not grant the opportunity for cross-examination as directed by the CESTAT, which compromised the fairness and procedural integrity of the adjudication process.

Issue 3: The petition sought the issuance of a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ to permanently prohibit the respondents from taking any action based on the Order in Original dated 19.2.2021. Additionally, they requested the quashing and setting aside of the said order, with a direction to strictly follow the directions issued by the Appellate Tribunal in reconsidering the issue afresh.

Issue 4: The Court, after considering the submissions of both parties, quashed and set aside the impugned Order in Original dated 19.2.2021. The matter was remanded back to the respondent No. 2 with instructions to comply with the directions of the Tribunal within six months. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the Tribunal's directives and ensuring a fair and thorough adjudication process in the fresh order to be passed.

Overall, the judgment focused on the failure of the respondent No. 2 to follow the directions of the Tribunal, leading to the quashing of the impugned order and a remand for a fresh adjudication process that upholds the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness.