2010 (10) TMI 310

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e authority which takes a decision should itself give a hearing and even if such procedure is deviated from, the authority hearing must consider the view point of the affected parties with regard to recommendations made to it, which implies that the adverse material which is made foundation of the order is confronted to the affected parties - Petition is allowed
Adarsh Kumar Goel and Ajay Kumar Mittal, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : S/Shri Jagmohan Bansal and Vishav Bharti, Advocates, for the Petitioner. Shri H.P.S. Ghuman, Standing Counsel, for the Respondent. [Order per : Adarsh Kumar Goel, J.] . - This petition seeks quashing of notification dated 30-12-2006, adding Rule 12CC to the Central Excise Rules, 2002 (for short, "the 2002 Rules") a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... preventive action will be a drastic power which could be exercised on pick and choose basis; (iii) Under the scheme of the Rules, while opportunity of hearing is to be granted by the Chief Commissioner, order is to be passed by the members of the Board without giving an opportunity of hearing; (iv) No guidelines have been prescribed for exercise of power by laying down minimum or maximum period for which restrictions are to operate; (v) Even though the notification was valid exercise of power, by passing the impugned order, thereunder, was arbitrary being in violation of principles of natural justice and without there being a time limit for completion of proceedings. Thus, the preventive action resulted in penal action; (vi) Under any .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tion taken should be justifiable to the extent of fault. Disproportionate harsh action was violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute that monetary limit of evasion of Rs. 10 lacs, which may justify action under the impugned rules, does not fulfill evasion as per allegations in the Show Cause Notice, Annexure P-7. 8. In view of admitted position, preventive action under the impugned order cannot be justified. Accordingly, the impugned order, Annexure P-8, is liable to be quashed. This will, however, be without prejudice to any other or further action in accordance with law. 9. Even though it may not be necessary to go into other questions, since the questio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X