2019 (7) TMI 491

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e respondents, returnable on 24.07.2019. The respondent No.2 shall be served directly. Notice to the respondent No.1 shall go through the court.
MR J. B. PARDIWALA AND MR A. C. RAO, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : AMAL PARESH DAVE (8961) For The Petitioner (s) : MR PARESH M DAVE (260) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA) 1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ-application is the order passed by the respondent No.2, i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Bhavnagar. 2. The operative part of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 reads thus: "(1) I confirm the demand of ₹ 89,23,350/- (Rupees Eighty Nine Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Three Hundred and Fifty only) (Basic C.Ex. Duty 86,63 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... I impose penalty of ₹ 1,77,33,712/- (Rupees One Crore Seventy Seven Lakhs Thirty Three Thousand Seven Hundred and Twelve only) in respect of Central Excise duty as mentioned at Sr. No. (2) upon the Noticee No.1 i.e. M/s. Newage Industries, Surendranagar under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944. (7) I impose penalty of ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) upon Noticee 2 i.e. Shri Ashok Shah under Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002." 3. We take notice of the fact that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is an appealable order under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. An appeal would lie before the Appellate Tribunal. We also took notice of the provisions of Section 35(F) of the Act, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tice of the fact that all the submissions canvassed before the Commissioner have been noted in the said paras. According to Mr. Dave, since the principal submissions going to the root of the matter have not been dealt with by the Commissioner, the impugned order could be termed as violative of the principles of natural justice. If that be so, according to Mr. Dave, this petition may be entertained without asking the writ-applicant to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal. In support of such submission, Mr. Dave has placed strong reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Vadilal Gases Ltd. Vs. Union of India, reported in 2016 (332) ELT 625 (Guj.). 5. He also placed reliance on the following decisions: (i) Manek Chemic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X