2021 (2) TMI 202 - HC - Central Excise

Appeal dismissed, orders affirmed. Natural justice principles, document relevance arguments rejected. Writ appeal dismissed, no costs.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the orders of the lower authorities and the learned Single Bench. The appellant's arguments regarding the ... Recovery of erroneous rebate - argument of the appellant is that the original authority while confirming the demand failed to comply with the directions issued by the First Appellate Authority in as much as the relied upon documents which were directed to be given were not furnished - Violation of principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT:- Considering the factual finding which has been rendered by the hierarchy of authorities as well as the learned Writ Court, it is found that absolutely no substance in the argument advanced before use on behalf of the appellant. The facts and circumstances clearly show that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice and the appellant has been harping upon certain documents which are of no impact on their case and in fact the founder, namely, M/s.ERTP themselves have accepted the suppression and have not challenged the action initiated by the Department against them. Thus, there is absolutely no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Bench. It was argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that in the show cause notice there was no proposal for levy of penalty under Section 11AC. This is an incorrect submission because relevant rules find place in the show cause notice as well as the order-in-original, probably non- mentioning of Section 11AC can in no manner vitiate the proceedings. In fact, the appellant appears to have not raised this contention in the year 2006 when proceedings were initiated against them and the present attempt is a belated attempt which cannot be a ground to interfere with the impugned order. Appeal dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Challenge to the order dated 05.08.2020 in W.P.No.15517 of 2012.2. Compliance with the directions issued by the First Appellate Authority.3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice.4. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944.5. Relevance of documents requested by the appellant.Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to the order dated 05.08.2020 in W.P.No.15517 of 2012:The appellant filed the writ petition challenging the order of the revisional authority dated 30.04.2012, which confirmed the demand raised by the original authority and upheld by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals). The writ petition was dismissed, leading to the current appeal.2. Compliance with the directions issued by the First Appellate Authority:The original authority, upon remand, was directed to supply the relied upon documents to the appellant. The appellant argued that the original authority failed to comply with these directions. However, the adjudicating authority considered the third request for documents and deemed it irrelevant, stating that the documents would not assist the appellant in forming any other explanation.3. Alleged violation of principles of natural justice:The appellant contended that there was a violation of principles of natural justice as the relied upon documents were not furnished. The First Appellate Authority and the revisional authority both found that reasonable opportunities were extended to the appellant to inspect and take copies of the documents. The appellant's representative inspected the documents on 01.08.2006 and 02.08.2006 but later requested additional documents, which were deemed irrelevant by the authorities.4. Imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944:The appellant argued that the show cause notice did not propose a penalty under Section 11AC. The court found this submission incorrect, noting that the relevant rules were mentioned in the show cause notice and the order-in-original. The court observed that the appellant did not raise this contention when the proceedings were initiated in 2006, making it a belated attempt.5. Relevance of documents requested by the appellant:The authorities concluded that the documents requested by the appellant were not relevant to their defense. The revisional authority observed that the appellant's representative had inspected the documents and failed to substantiate their relevance. The learned Single Bench also noted that the appellant had been given reasonable opportunities to peruse and take copies of the documents, which they did not fully utilize.Conclusion:The court found no merit in the appellant's arguments, concluding that there was no violation of principles of natural justice and that the appellant's requests for documents were irrelevant. The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the orders of the lower authorities and the learned Single Bench. The writ appeal was dismissed with no costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.