9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 477 - HC - Central ExciseViolation of principles of natural justice - case of the petitioner is that no opportunity of furnishing a written reply to the said audit para was provided - demand of excise duty with interest and penalties on Food Items manufactured by the petitioner - benefit of N/N. 12/2012-Central Excise dated 17.03.2012 - HELD THAT - Admittedly in the instant case, the Order-in-Original has been passed and the thrust of argument of this petitioner is that principle of natural justice has not been complied in this case, and as such, the instant writ application is maintainable. However, after going through the Order-in-Original it clearly transpires that the Adjudicating Authority has held at page 47 of the order in O.I.O that opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioner on 17.11.2020 through virtual mode as well as physical mode, however, the noticee failed to appear. On 17.12.2020 again the petitioner was given an opportunity of personal hearing through virtual mode as well as physical mode. In response to personal hearing scheduled on 17.12.2020, the petitioner requested adjournment on the ground that the authorized person was suffering from COVID-19 and requested that personal hearing may be given on some other day - Finally, personal hearing in the case was held on 08.01.2021 when the noticee appeared and was represented by Sh. Mukesh Kasera, Manager (Finance) and Sh. Rahul Lakhwani, Authorized representatives. In view of the categorical finding in the Order-in-Original it clearly transpires that principle of natural justice has been duly followed. Jurisdiction - powers of High Court - HELD THAT - After going through the judgment in M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES VERSUS STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH ORS. 2021 (4) TMI 837 - SUPREME COURT , it appears that the law on the issue of maintainability has been reiterated in this case and the Hon ble Apex Court has categorically held that exceptions to rule of alternative remedy arise where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of fundamental right or there has been a violation of principle of natural justice or the order or proceeding are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of legislation is challenged. In the case of M/S RADHA KRISHAN INDUSTRIES, the Hon ble Apex Court has also held that when a right is created by a statute, which itself prescribes the remedy or procedure for enforcing the right or liability, resort must be had to that particular statutory remedy before invoking the discretionary remedy - Coming to the facts of the case as stated, there appears to be no violation of principles of natural justice. Moreover, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the Order-in-Original for which there is a statutory remedy prescribed by the statute. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the Order-in-Original is passed without jurisdiction. None of the exceptions as carved by the Hon ble Apex Court for maintainability of the writ application, bypassing the alternative remedy, has been met out in the instant application. As such merits of this case is not considered and the instant writ application is dismissed on the ground of maintainability itself with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 35 B of Central Excise Act, 1944. Application dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Acceptance of certificates filed by the petitioner in compliance with Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise. 2. Declaration of no excise duty payable on the Food Items manufactured by the petitioner. 3. Legality of jurisdiction assumed by Respondent No.3 to issue the Show Cause Notice (SCN) and subsequent proceedings. 4. Quashing of the letter denying the extension of time for submission of exemption certificates. 5. Maintainability of the writ application due to alleged violation of principles of natural justice. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Acceptance of Certificates Filed by the Petitioner: The petitioner sought a direction for Respondent No.1 to accept the certificates filed with the application dated 07.06.2021 in compliance with Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise dated 17.03.2012. The petitioner argued that the certificates were delayed due to the State Government issuing them only after final payment of bills. The court noted that the petitioner formally requested an extension of time for submission of the certificates only after the Order-in-Original dated 12.04.2021 was passed, rendering the request untimely. 2. Declaration of No Excise Duty Payable: The petitioner claimed exemption from excise duty under Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise, asserting that all pre-requisites were fulfilled. However, the court found that the petitioner failed to submit the required certificates within the prescribed 5 months, as noted in the audit report. The court did not delve into the merits of this claim due to the procedural focus on maintainability. 3. Legality of Jurisdiction Assumed by Respondent No.3: The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of Respondent No.3 to issue the SCN dated 24.07.2019, arguing that the audit and subsequent proceedings were conducted without proper authority and violated principles of natural justice. The court observed that the petitioner was given opportunities for personal hearings and that the adjudicating authority followed due process, thereby rejecting the claim of jurisdictional overreach. 4. Quashing of the Letter Denying Extension of Time: The petitioner sought to quash the letter dated 22.06.2021, which denied the request for an extension of time to submit exemption certificates. The court noted that the request for extension was made after the Order-in-Original was passed, and there was no provision in the Central Excise Act, 1944, or its circulars/notifications to grant such an extension post-adjudication by a higher authority. 5. Maintainability of the Writ Application: The petitioner argued that the writ application was maintainable due to a gross violation of natural justice. The court, however, found that the principles of natural justice were duly followed, as the petitioner was given multiple opportunities for personal hearings. Citing the Supreme Court's judgment in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh, the court emphasized that exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy include violations of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, or challenges to the vires of legislation. Since none of these exceptions were met, the court dismissed the writ application on the grounds of maintainability, directing the petitioner to pursue the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 35 B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ application on the ground of maintainability, providing the petitioner with the liberty to raise all grounds, including substantial compliance, before the appellate authority. The court reiterated the importance of following statutory remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
|
