Court grants writ petition, sets aside order, emphasizes natural justice, mandates personal hearings for fresh consideration.

The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file objections within one month, and the adjudicating authority was instructed to provide at least three opportunities for a personal hearing before issuing a new order in compliance with legal requirements. The court stressed the significance of upholding principles of natural justice and the mandatory nature of personal hearings as outlined in the Master Circular and statutory provisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Violation of principles of natural justice.
2. Requirement for personal hearing in adjudication.
3. Compliance with statutory provisions and departmental circulars.
4. Maintainability of writ petition despite alternative remedies.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The petitioner challenged the impugned order on the grounds of violation of principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority did not provide an opportunity for a personal hearing before passing the order, which is a fundamental requirement under the principles of natural justice, commonly known as "audi alteram partem" (no one should be condemned unheard). The court acknowledged that the order was passed within two days after the lapse of the time granted in the show cause notice, without affording any opportunity for a personal hearing or submission of objections, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

2. Requirement for Personal Hearing in Adjudication:
The petitioner contended that as per the Master Circular issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, it is mandatory for the adjudicating authority to provide at least three opportunities for a personal hearing with sufficient intervals. The court noted that the Master Circular mandates that the adjudicating authority should fix a date and time for personal hearing and provide at least three opportunities for the noticee to avail the opportunity of being heard. The court emphasized that the provision of personal hearing is essential before deciding any issue by a quasi-judicial authority.

3. Compliance with Statutory Provisions and Departmental Circulars:
The respondents relied on Section 33-A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which states that the adjudicating authority shall give an opportunity of being heard to a party if the party so desires. The court interpreted that even if the party does not explicitly request a personal hearing, the opportunity of being heard is an inbuilt procedure in any adjudicatory process and cannot be dispensed with. The court further stated that the Master Circular issued by the Central Board makes personal hearing mandatory and is binding on all quasi-judicial authorities.

4. Maintainability of Writ Petition Despite Alternative Remedies:
The respondents argued that the petitioner should have exhausted alternative remedies before approaching the court. However, the court cited a Full Bench decision of the Hyderabad High Court, which held that a writ petition can be entertained against an Order-in-Original if sufficient grounds are made out warranting exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court concluded that when an order is passed in violation of principles of natural justice, a writ petition under Article 226 is maintainable, and the availability of alternative remedies is not a bar.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the impugned order dated 29.07.2016, and remanded the matter back to the first respondent for fresh consideration. The petitioner was directed to file all objections within one month, and the first respondent was instructed to afford at least three opportunities for personal hearing with sufficient intervals before passing a new order on merits and in accordance with law. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of natural justice and the mandatory provisions of personal hearing as stipulated in the Master Circular and statutory provisions.

---