TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
In a welcome decision, the hon’ble Patna High Court has, in the case of M/s Surya CEF JV Versus The Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Ranchi, The Principal Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Patna-I, The Commissioner, Central Tax (Audit), Patna, The Superintendent, CGST and Central Excise Range, Phulwarisharif. - 2025 (4) TMI 1192 - PATNA HIGH COURT and in a Service tax matter held that the adjudicating authority is required to comply with statutory requirement of granting at least 4 opportunities of personal hearing before passing the adjudication order.
The hon’ble High Court has relied on provisions of section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 made applicable to the Finance Act, 1994 and the master circular number 1053/2/2017 -CX dated 10th March 2017 and held as follows: -
24. At this stage, this Court finds that by virtue of Section 83 of the Act of 1994, Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would be applicable in relation to the adjudication procedures which were adopted by Respondent No. 3. Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 reads as under:-
Inserted by Act 23 of 2004, S.81 (w.ef. 10-9-2004). [33A. Adjudication procedure.—(1) The Adjudicating authority shall, in any proceeding under this Chapter or any other provision of this Act, give an opportunity of being heard to a party in a proceeding, if the party so desires.
(2) The Adjudicating authority may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of proceeding referred to in sub-section (1), grant time, from time to time, to the parties or any of them and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing:
Provided that no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the proceeding.]
25. The spirit of Section 33A may be found in paragraph 14.3 of the master circular no. 1053/2/2017-CX dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure-P5). Paragraph 14.3 reads as under:-
14.3 Personal hearing : After having given a fair opportunity to the noticee for replying to the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority may proceed to fix a date and time for personal hearing in the case and request the assessee to appear before him for a personal hearing by himself or through an authorised representative. At least three opportunities of personal hearing should be given with sufficient interval of time so that the noticee may avail opportunity of being heard. Separate communications should be made to the noticee for each opportunity of personal hearing. In fact separate letter for each hearing/extension should be issued at sufficient interval. The Adjudicating authority may, if sufficient case is shown, at any stage of proceeding adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing. However, no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a noticee.
26. Further, paragraph 14.4 of the master circular mandates that the adjudicating authority must maintain a record of personal hearing and written submission made during the personal hearing. Evidence of personal hearing and written submission on record, would be very important while adjudicating the case. A combined reading of paragraph 14.3 and 14.4 of the master circular leaves no room to contest that Respondent No. 3 may deviate from these provisions of the master circular but in the present case, we find that Respondent No. 3 has not followed the mandate of granting at least three opportunities of personal hearing to the petitioner company.
27. In our considered opinion, the statutory requirement as envisaged under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with paragraph 14.3 of the master circular has not been complied with.
It would be important to note that the provisions of section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 are para materia to the provisions of section 75(5) of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 and accordingly the said decision would apply in the GST regime as well.
However, it is also interesting to note that the said decision is contrary to the decision of hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M/s. Sri Srinivasa Lorry Transport Versus The Assistant Commissioner St and Others - 2024 (9) TMI 1684 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT, wherein the hon’ble High Court has said that there is no requirement to grant minimum three adjournments personal hearings. In the said case, the hon’ble High Court has said that the law has provided maximum limit on number of adjournments. However, that does not mean that minimum of 3 adjournments would have to be given.
Unlikely the decision of hon’ble Patna High Court, the decision by the hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court has not noticed the provisions of section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and the circular dated 10th March 2017.
The principle of natural justice requires that no party should be condemned unheard has been held to be one of the fundamental rights by hon’ble Supreme Court in number of decisions. In such a situation, least could be expected from the tax authorities to be more generous and grant minimum of the 3 adjournments of personal hearing with reasonable intervals, fixing the date and time by separate letters. This would not only bring much desired fairness in the adjudication process but would also avoid unnecessary litigation on such issues. Therefore, in total, four personal hearings should be granted to the taxpayer, amongst which three adjournment opportunities shall be granted by the authorities. The taxpayer must be vigilant about the law and avail benefit to participate in adjudication proceedings properly.