Court clarifies communication as preliminary step, directs fresh notice under Central Excise Act for due process

The court held that the communication directing payment of Excise Duty without a show cause notice was not a demand but a preliminary step in the adjudication process. The court directed the respondent to issue a fresh notice under the Central Excise Act, allowing the petitioner to respond before any orders were passed. The writ petition was disposed of without costs, emphasizing the importance of following proper procedures and providing opportunities for parties to respond in matters concerning Excise Duty.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to communication directing payment of Excise Duty without show cause notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a communication from the respondent dated 19-1-2015, directing them to pay Excise Duty without a show cause notice. The petitioner contended that the demand was made without proper procedure. The respondent argued that it was merely an intimation of lapses and not a demand. The respondent stated that the petitioner would have to pay duty, interest, and penalty if liable, but since it was at a preliminary stage, the writ petition was premature and should be dismissed.

The court noted that the respondent's contention could be valid if there was no demand in the communication. The court observed that the communication was part of the adjudication process and an opportunity would be given to the petitioner to pay any admitted amount. The petitioner argued that the communication should be treated as a show cause notice to allow them to respond formally. The court considered both parties' submissions and concluded that the communication was not a demand but a preliminary step. The court directed the respondent to issue a fresh notice under the Central Excise Act, allowing the petitioner to respond and be heard before passing any orders.

In conclusion, the court disposed of the writ petition, stating that the narration in the order was for the petition's disposal and would not prejudice either party's rights. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. The judgment emphasized the importance of following proper procedures in demanding Excise Duty and providing opportunities for parties to respond and be heard before making final decisions.

---