2014 (9) TMI 585

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....udgment and order dated 21.09.2006 passed by the learned Reason: Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. For the sake of clarity and convenience we shall advert to the facts in Civil Appeal No. 3380 of 2010 and at the relevant time we shall refer to quantum involved in other appeals. 2. The facts, in a nutshell, are that with a view to provide necessary impetus to the development of industries in the north-eastern region a new Industrial Policy Resolution was notified by the Government of India on 24.12.1997. In pursuance of the said policy, a Notification was issued on 8.7.1999 and thereafter further Notifications were issued on 29.06.2001 and 23.12.2002. Pursuant to the said Notifications, certain benefits were availed of by the assessees. At that juncture, The Finance Act, 2003 (for brevity "the Act") was brought into force and by virtue of Section 153 of the Act certain Notifications were amended with retrospective effect from 08.07.1999, i.e. the date of original Notification which we have mentioned hereinabove. 3. After the amendment came into force, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Jorhat referred to the amendment and the notifications and eventually passed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....onal validity of the provision. Learned senior counsel submitted that an order of recovery could not have been straightaway passed without issuing notice to the appellant as that violates the principles of natural justice. The learned senior counsel further contended that the High Court has dwelled upon the merits of the case on an erroneous footing inasmuch as the assessee-appellant had totally utilized the CENVAT Credit and not taken the refund of the same. It is further urged that in view of the amendment made by the Finance Act, it was not payable and consequently not recoverable. 7. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi, learned Attorney General appearing for the Union of India submitted that as the time schedule is fixed under Section 153 (4) for recovery is thirty days, by implication, the principle of issue of any show cause notice is not attracted. To support the said submission, he has drawn strength from the decision in R.C. Tobacco (P) Ltd. v. Union of India (2005) 7 SCC 725, especially paragraph 41 of the said pronouncement. Additionally, it is submitted by him that post facto hearing may be thought of after the amount is deposited and the sphere of hearing may be limited with regard to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ct of any goods under the said notifications, and no enforcement shall be made by any court, tribunal or other authority of any decree or order relating to such action taken or anything done or omitted to be done as if the amendment made by sub-section (1) had been in force at all material times. (4) Notwithstanding the cessation of the nd amendment under sub-section (1) on the 22 day of December, 2002, recovery shall be made of all amounts of duty or interest or other charges which have not been collected or, as the case may be, which have been refunded but which would have been collected, or, as the case may be, which would not have been refunded if the provisions of this section had been in force at all material times, within a period of thirty days from the day on which the Finance Bill, 2003 receives the assent of the President, and in the event of non-payment of duty or interest or other charges so recoverable, interest at the rate of fifteen per cent, per annum shall be payable, from the date immediately after the expiry of the said period of thirty days, till the date of payment. Explanation- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that no act or omission on the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....at whether a statute provides for notice or not, it was incumbent upon the respondents to issue notice to the petitioners disclosing the circumstance under which proceedings are sought to be initiated against them and that any proceedings taken without such notice would be against the principles of natural justice. Assuming that the principles were applicable to the case before us, in fact notices of personal hearing were served on the petitioners by the Assistant Collector for a personal hearing before the Assistant Collector passed the orders by which the petitioners were held liable to repay the refunds made and to pay the excise on the goods cleared for the subsequent periods." Relying on the same it is submitted by Mr. Rohatagi that as the computation and the recovery are to be made within a time frame of thirty days, issue of a show cause notice cannot be read into such a provision. In essence, the submission is that the principles of natural justice have been kept at bay by implication. Per contra, Mr. Bagaria has submitted that in the above-referred decision notices have already been given and, therefore, issuance of notice is a must. Ordinarily we would have adverted to s....