Petitioner's Remission Application Rejected: Appeal to Tribunal for Remedy

The Court found that the petitioner had the opportunity to present their case before the Commissioner regarding the remission of excise duty. The Commissioner rejected the remission application due to lack of evidence supporting the claim. The Court advised the petitioners to appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal for remedy, emphasizing that the Writ Court is not a fact-finding court. The Court disposed of the writ application, permitting the appeal to the Tribunal if filed within the specified timeframe.

---

---

Issues: Breach of principles of natural justice in passing the order for remission of excise duty.

In this case, the petitioner argued that there was a breach of natural justice principles by the Commissioner in passing the order for remission of excise duty. The petitioner contended that a personal hearing was given in relation to a show cause notice dated 16th November, 2010, which was different from the subject matter of the remission application. The petitioner claimed that this discrepancy vitiated the proceedings, and the order should be set aside. The petitioner's counsel argued that if a proper hearing had been given, they could have established their claim for remission of duty. However, the Revenue's counsel argued that the issues involved in the show cause notice and the remission application were identical, and the information from the show cause notice hearing was used to decide on the remission application.

The Court noted that a fire had allegedly broken out in the petitioner's factory, leading to the destruction of stock and finished goods. The petitioner applied for remission of excise duty based on Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, which allowed duty remission in case of goods destroyed by natural causes or accidents. A show cause notice was issued on 16th November, 2010, demanding excise duty. The personal hearing for the remission application was held on 2nd February, 2012, and the impugned order was passed on 28th March, 2012. The Court opined that the purpose of natural justice rules is to provide an opportunity for a party to present their case, which could be done through written or oral representation, examination of witnesses, etc. The Court found that the petitioners had the opportunity to present their case before the Commissioner.

The Commissioner rejected the remission application on grounds that the existence of stock and finished products was not proven, the fire services department report did not support the petitioner's case, and required documents were not produced. The Court suggested that if the petitioners were aggrieved by the Commissioner's order, they should appeal to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) as it is the proper remedy, considering that the Writ Court is not a fact-finding court. The Court also noted the timing of the writ petition in relation to the Commissioner's order and allowed the petitioners to appeal to the Tribunal by a specified date, with the Tribunal having discretion to consider all points raised in the writ petition.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of the writ application, allowing the appeal to the Tribunal if filed within the specified timeframe.

---