Court upholds appeal rights under Central Excise Act.

The court held that there was no violation of natural justice principles in the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Madurai. The petitioner was granted the opportunity to file an appeal before the CESTAT within the specified timeframe under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory appeal provisions and allowed the petitioner to proceed with the appeal. The lost original order issue was addressed, permitting the use of reconstructed writ petition papers for filing the appeal. No costs were imposed on either party, and the writ petition was closed.

---

---

Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in the order passed by Commissioner, Central Excise, Madurai; Opportunity for cross examination not granted; Delay in adjudication proceedings; Appeal under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944.

Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The writ petition challenged the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Madurai, alleging a violation of natural justice principles due to the lack of opportunity for cross examination. The petitioner contended that despite requesting permission to cross examine around 50 witnesses, no response was received from the respondent before the impugned order was issued. The respondent, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner had multiple opportunities to present their defense but failed to do so, leading to delays in the adjudication process. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise detailed the timeline of events, showing that the petitioner repeatedly requested extensions to file their reply without substantial progress. The court noted that the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities for defense, and the lack of response on multiple occasions indicated a deliberate delay tactic rather than a denial of natural justice.

Delay in Adjudication Proceedings:
The counter affidavit revealed a series of delays caused by the petitioner in responding to the show cause notice and availing opportunities for personal hearings. Despite extensions granted for filing replies, the petitioner continuously sought further time, citing reasons such as voluminous case records and alleged coercion in obtaining statements. The respondent provided multiple chances for personal hearings, but the petitioner either delayed or did not attend, prolonging the process. The court observed that the petitioner's actions demonstrated a purposeful attempt to drag out the proceedings rather than a genuine effort to engage in the adjudication process promptly.

Appeal under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944:
The judgment highlighted the provision under Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, allowing for an appeal to the CESTAT within three months of the impugned order. As the impugned order was issued on 29.06.2004 and the writ petition was filed on 20.08.2004, falling within the appeal timeframe, the court granted the petitioner the opportunity to file an appeal before the CESTAT within the prescribed period. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory appeal provisions and directed the petitioner to avail themselves of the appeal remedy within the stipulated time frame.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the respondent had provided sufficient opportunities for the petitioner to present their case, and there was no violation of natural justice principles in the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Madurai. As per the provisions of Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, 1944, the petitioner was granted the liberty to file an appeal before the CESTAT within three months from the date of receipt of the order. Additionally, the court addressed the issue of the lost original order and directed that the reconstructed writ petition papers would be acceptable for filing the appeal before the CESTAT. The writ petition was closed with no costs imposed on either party.

---