2003 (1) TMI 119 - HC - Central Excise

Court quashes orders, directs reevaluation. Petitioner to bear costs for delays. Commissioner to decide case on merits.

PARENTERAL DRUGS (INDIA) LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA

The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders dated 24/25-9-2002 and 29-11-2002, and directed the Commissioner to consider the petitioner's ... Natural justice Issues involved:Challenge to orders dated 25-9-2002 and 29-11-2002 passed by Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Indore regarding excisability of certain products, petitioner's request for adjournment, setting aside of ex parte order, and deprivation of opportunity to defend the case on merits.Detailed Analysis:1. Challenge to Orders: The petitioner filed a writ challenging the orders dated 25-9-2002 and 29-11-2002 passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Indore regarding the excisability of certain products. The petitioner contended that they were deprived of an opportunity to be heard on the merits of the case, leading to huge liability of excise duty and penalty being levied against them.2. Adjournment Request: The case was scheduled for proceedings before the Commissioner on 20-9-2002. The petitioner requested an adjournment on that day due to the non-availability of their counsel. However, the Commissioner did not pass any order on the adjournment request, and subsequently, a final order was passed on 25-9-2002 against the petitioner without giving them a chance to defend their case on merits.3. Setting Aside of Ex Parte Order: Following the order dated 25-9-2002, the petitioner applied for setting aside the ex parte order on 3-10-2002. When no decision was made on their application, the petitioner approached the court seeking to quash the order or a mandamus directing the Commissioner to decide their application. The court directed the Commissioner to decide the application on its merits, leading to the order dated 29-11-2002.4. Legal Analysis: The court found that the Commissioner's approach in deciding the issue was too technical and deprived the petitioner of a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The court emphasized the fundamental right of a citizen to be heard before any decision is taken against them. The court highlighted the importance of affording citizens the fullest opportunity to present their case before any adverse decision is made.5. Judicial Principles: The judgment underscored the significance of the principles of natural justice, opportunity of being heard, and observance of legal principles in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings. The court stressed that authorities must ensure that citizens have faith in the legal system by being given a real opportunity to defend their rights, even if the eventual decision goes against them.6. Conclusion: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the orders dated 24/25-9-2002 and 29-11-2002, and directed the Commissioner to consider the petitioner's reply filed on 27-9-2002 on merits. The court imposed a cost on the petitioner for any delaying tactics and instructed the Commissioner to decide the case strictly on its merits and in accordance with the law, uninfluenced by the court's observations in the writ.This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues involved, the legal arguments presented, and the court's reasoning in granting the writ petition and providing directions for further proceedings.