2014 (11) TMI 666 - HC - Central Excise

High Court emphasizes natural justice in Central Excise Act revision, stresses petitioner's right to a hearing

ANIL PANCHMATIA Versus UNION OF INDIA

The High Court set aside the order rejecting Revision Applications under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, due to lack of a personal hearing, ... Exemption under Notification No. 34/2003-C.E., dated 30-4-2003 - claiming simplified procedure for exempted units in respect of clearance of textile goods for export through merchant exporters - revenue observed that goods were not exported - Violation of principle of natural justice - Opportunity of personal hearing not granted - Held that:- Revisionary Authority ought to have granted a personal hearing to the petitioner and more particularly when letters for such request were written by partner of the petitioner-firm seeking indulgence on the ground that he being cancer patient, the Revisionary Authority ought not to have proceeded to pass an ex parte order. We are therefore of the opinion that it is in the interest of justice that the impugned orders which are passed by the Revisionary Authority without granting an opportunity to the petitioner to represent his case, cannot be sustained. - Decided in favour of assessee. Issues:Challenge to order rejecting Revision Applications under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944.Analysis:The case involved two writ petitions challenging a common order passed by the Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Finance, rejecting Revision Applications filed under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner firm, a manufacturer of ready-made garments, had filed for exemption under specific notifications for the clearance of textile goods for export through merchant exporters. However, the department observed that the transactions with the merchant exporters did not qualify as export clearance under the prescribed procedure for exempted units. This led to a show cause notice being issued for duty recovery, interest, and penalties. The Original Authority confirmed the duty demand and imposed penalties on the firm and its partner. Appeals were filed before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the decision, leading to Revision Applications before the Joint Secretary. The Revisionary Authority confirmed the Commissioner's order but reduced the penalties imposed on the petitioners.The principal grievance raised by the petitioner was that the impugned order had been passed ex parte, without granting a personal hearing. The partner of the petitioner firm had requested an adjournment due to health reasons, but the Revisionary Authority proceeded with the order. The High Court found that considering the history of the case and the previous proceedings, the Revisionary Authority should have granted a personal hearing, especially when the partner's health condition was cited as a reason for non-appearance. The Court held that passing an ex parte order without giving the petitioner an opportunity to represent their case was against the principles of natural justice and fairness.In light of the circumstances and the partner's health condition, the High Court set aside the impugned order and directed that the petitioner be heard on the Revision Applications during the Revisionary Authority's sitting in Mumbai. It was emphasized that the petitioner must attend the hearing during the specified dates; otherwise, they would not benefit from the Court's order. The Court disposed of the writ petitions with this direction, highlighting the importance of providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to present their case before any decision is made.