2019 (9) TMI 423 - HC - Central Excise

Court Upholds Fair Process, Grants Appeal Opportunity, No Need for Original Order

M/s. Govardhan Spinners Ltd. Versus The Commissioner Central Excise

The court found that there was no violation of natural justice in the case, as the petitioners were granted sufficient opportunities for personal hearings ... Principles of Natural Justice - the petitioners were not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses - HELD THAT:- No reply statement has been filed opposing such a statement made in the counter affidavit. As such it is seen that the petitioners were granted opportunity at least on four occasions which have not been availed by the petitioners. It is also seen that the petitioners has not produced any list of witnesses whom they intend to cross examine. In these circumstances, it can be said that sufficient opportunities were extended to the petitioner, which was not availed by them, within a reasonable time. In cases where there is violation of principles of natural justice, this Court would be justified in interfering with the final orders inspite of an appeal remedy available to the petitioner - Since the respondents had granted sufficient opportunities to the petitioner, it is held that there is no violation of principles of natural justice and hence setting aside the impugned order will not be proper. Since the petitioners have approached this Court within the appeal time prescribed to approach the CESTAT, this Court is of the view that the petitioners can be granted an opportunity to file an appeal within a stipulated time - petition closed. Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice in a writ petition challenging an order by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Madurai.Analysis:1. The main ground raised in the writ petition was the alleged violation of principles of natural justice due to the petitioners not being given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses.2. The petitioners sought permission to cross-examine around 50 witnesses but claimed that the respondents neither granted nor rejected their request, leading to the impugned order.3. The respondents argued that the petitioners had multiple opportunities to file replies and participate in personal hearings but failed to do so, causing delays in the proceedings.4. The counter affidavit by the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise detailed the timeline of events, showing that the petitioners requested multiple extensions to file replies, delaying the process.5. The court noted that the petitioners were granted multiple opportunities for personal hearings, but they did not avail themselves of these chances and did not produce a list of witnesses for cross-examination.6. Despite the appeal remedy available, the court stated that it could interfere if there was a violation of natural justice.7. The court found that the respondents had provided sufficient opportunities to the petitioners, concluding that there was no violation of natural justice and setting aside the impugned order would not be appropriate.8. The court highlighted Section 35(B) of the Central Excise Act, which allows an appeal to the CESTAT within three months of the impugned order, and granted the petitioners the opportunity to file an appeal within the specified time.9. The petitioners informed the court that the original order was lost during the writ petition process, and the court directed that the CESTAT should not require the original order when filing the appeal.10. The writ petition was closed with the liberty for the petitioners to file an appeal before the CESTAT within three months, and no costs were imposed.This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues raised in the writ petition regarding the violation of natural justice and the subsequent legal proceedings and decisions by the court.