TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 807
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....#39;CE Tariff Act' for brevity). It is the case of the Revenue that this has been done without Central Excise registration i.e., without payment of Central Excise duty and without following the provisions of 'Central Excise Rules' ('CE Rules' for brevity). Therefore, a show-cause notice dated 23.09.1998 was issued to the writ petitioner. 4. After giving an adumbration of various rules of CE Rules, inter-alia Rules 174, 173B, 9(1) read with Rules 173 F, 52A, 53, 173 B and 173 G and stating that the writ petitioner is guilty of contravention of the same, it was also alleged by the Revenue that the petitioner has wilfully suppressed the manufacture and removal of PLC Systems. It is the pointed case of the Revenue that this has been done with the intention to evade payment of Central Excise duty. 5. In response to the aforesaid show-cause notice, writ petitioner sent written replies on various dates including 28.01.1999, 08.03.1999, 08.04.1999, 26.08.1999, 11.02.2003, 05.05.2003 and 16.08.2003. In the replies to the 'show-cause notice' ('SCN' for brevity), writ petitioner inter-alia submitted that the Additional Commissioner has no jurisdiction to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....spondent has recorded as if the petitioner had failed to appear for the personal hearing on 18.9.2003 and therefore, the authority was constrained to decide the case based on the written submissions. The case of the petitioner is that he appeared before the authority in August 2003 and submitted written submissions and the personal hearing was adjourned to September 2003 and even assuming that the personal hearing was held on 18.09.2003, the impugned order could not have been passed on 31.08.2003. There is no explanation for this gross error committed by the authority, as no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent. This Court is satisfied that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Since this Court is convinced that the impugned order is to b set aside on the above ground, the other issue regarding jurisdiction is left out. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed and the impugned order is left open. The matter is remanded back to the authority concerned to take a fresh decision in the matter, after affording reasonable opportunity to the petitioner. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.37984 of 2003 is closed. (underlining mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the impugned order reveals that it was also contended before the first respondent that this Court has already decided the issue of jurisdiction. To be noted, though there is a reference to W.P.No.6175 of 1999 in the impugned order, learned counsel for petitioner says that the relevant writ petition i.e., earlier writ petition filed by the writ petitioner is W.P.No.31200 of 2003. To be noted, the entire order made by a Hon'ble single Judge of this Court has been extracted and re-produced supra. The submission of learned counsel that the earlier writ petition is not W.P.No.6175 of 1999 and that it is W.P.No.31200 of 2003 is recorded. To be noted, order dated 10.07.2017 made in W.P.No.31200 of 2003 is annexed as part of the typed-set of papers and more particularly at Page 113. 13. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the Adjudicating Authority has held that this Hon'ble Court has left the jurisdiction issue open. A perusal of the earlier order of this Hon'ble Court and more particularly Paragraph 4 therein, makes it clear that the learned Adjudicating Authority has understood the order of this Hon'ble Court correctly and the Adjudicating Authority is correct....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the impugned order is being assailed i.e., violation of NJP. A perusal of paragraphs 4.1 and 5.0 of the impugned order reveals that a learned counsel has made submissions and the same have been recorded and considered. 18. This Court expresses no opinion on the merits of the findings which have been arrived at. Considering the position that the impugned order is being assailed on the ground of violation of NJP, this Court deems it appropriate to extract Paragraph 4.1 and 5.0, which read as follows: '4.1. However Ms.Sushma Harini A, Advocate, vide her letter dated 25.01.2019 (on a plain white sheet) stated that the subject was remanded to the appropriate authority for fresh adjudication after providing sufficient and reasonable opportunity. Further she contended that one of the grounds raised in the writ petition was that the Additional Commissioner no longer held jurisdiction to decide the above case in view of the Circular dated 01.10.2003 (No.752/68/2003-X) and consequently the jurisdiction no longer vested with the learned Additional Commissioner. She also contended that in view of the order of the High Court in W.P.No.31200/2003 dated 10.07.2017, the case had to be pos....