Court denies Writ Petitions, directs appeal to CESTAT under Section 35G, grants temporary stay.

The Court dismissed the Writ Petitions, citing the availability of an alternative remedy before the CESTAT under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The petitioner was granted liberty to appeal to the Tribunal, with a specified exclusion period for limitation computation and a temporary stay on coercive actions by the respondent. No costs were awarded, and the Court closed the related Miscellaneous Petitions.

---

---

Issues:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem.
2. Double duty imposition on the same shortage of raw materials.
3. Failure to provide an opportunity for personal hearing.
4. Alleged arbitrary demand raised by adopting electricity consumption charges.
5. Availability of an effective alternative remedy before the CESTAT under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act.

Issue 1: Violation of principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem:
The petitioner challenged the Order-in-Original on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem. The petitioner contended that the respondent did not consider their letters and representations, and that double duty was imposed on the same shortage of raw materials. The petitioner argued that the respondent passed the order without granting an opportunity for a personal hearing, which is a violation of natural justice principles.

Issue 2: Double duty imposition on the same shortage of raw materials:
The petitioner raised concerns about the imposition of double duty on the same shortage of raw materials, which they deemed a violation of natural justice. The petitioner highlighted the excess payments made towards duty and argued that imposing duty again on the shortage of raw material amounted to double taxation on the same issue.

Issue 3: Failure to provide an opportunity for personal hearing:
The petitioner claimed that they were not given a fair opportunity for a personal hearing. Despite multiple requests for rescheduling due to unforeseen circumstances like floods damaging their documents, the respondent proceeded with the Order-in-Original without granting a proper opportunity for the petitioner to present their case.

Issue 4: Alleged arbitrary demand raised by adopting electricity consumption charges:
The petitioner contended that the demand was raised arbitrarily by including electricity consumption charges. This raised concerns about the validity and fairness of the charges imposed by the respondent, indicating a lack of transparency in the assessment process.

Issue 5: Availability of an effective alternative remedy before the CESTAT under Section 35G:
The Court noted that the petitioner had an effective alternative remedy available before the CESTAT under Section 35G of the Central Excise Act. The Court emphasized the importance of utilizing the statutory appeal process provided by law and directed the petitioner to pursue their case through the appropriate appellate tribunal rather than seeking relief through writ petitions.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the Writ Petitions as not maintainable, citing the availability of an effective alternative remedy before the CESTAT. The Court granted the petitioner the liberty to move the Tribunal by way of appeal, with a specified exclusion period for computing limitation and a temporary stay on coercive actions by the respondent. No costs were awarded in the matter, and the Court closed the connected Miscellaneous Petitions.

---