2018 (7) TMI 425 - HC - Central Excise

Court orders re-do of case, sets aside Exhibit P7, emphasizing fair procedures and right to be heard.

M/s K.S. DISTILLERIES LTD. (UNIT OF SREEDHARAN & CO. (P) LTD.) Versus UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY, NEW DELHI, THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), COCHIN AND THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KERALA

The Court declined to interfere with the Exhibit P7 order, citing the availability of an alternate remedy. Acknowledging the appellant's claim of unfair ... Maintainability of Appeal - alternative remedy - despite the presence of the Counsel for the appellant and the matter not being heard, the same was disposed of by Exhibit P7 - Held that:- There is no cause for the appellant to have not argued this specific matter when the same was posted and the Counsel were also present - since the contention raised by the appellant has not been controverted, the matter has to be re-done - The appellant or the authorized representative shall appear before the officer on 28.03.2018 - writ appeal disposed off. Issues:1. Appellant aggrieved with Exhibit P7 order2. Refusal to interfere with the order on the ground of alternate remedy3. Allegation of unfair treatment due to non-hearing of the matter4. Lack of procedure for recording presence of Counsel5. Direction for re-doing the matterAnalysis:1. The appellant was dissatisfied with Exhibit P7 order, which the learned Single Judge declined to interfere with citing the availability of an alternate remedy. The Court acknowledged the general reluctance to review such decisions but noted the appellant's claim of unfair treatment due to non-hearing of the matter despite the presence of Counsel.2. Upon being informed of other appeals being heard on the same day with the appellants present, the Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to provide related files. However, due to practical difficulties, the entire files could not be produced, leading to inquiries about the procedure for recording Counsel's presence. It was revealed that while no such procedure existed previously, registers were now maintained for this purpose.3. Despite the lack of controversion of the appellant's contention, the Court decided that the matter needed to be re-done. Emphasizing that no opinion was expressed on the merits of the case, Exhibit P7 was set aside. The appellant or their authorized representative was instructed to appear before the officer on a specified date for a fresh hearing, ensuring the matter's disposal within a month from the date of hearing.4. The Court concluded the judgment by disposing of the Writ Appeal as indicated, without imposing any costs. The decision highlighted the importance of fair procedures and the right to be heard, ultimately ensuring that justice is served through a proper and transparent process.