AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
J.P. Devadhar, J.—Heard the learned Counsel for the Respondents. None appears for the Petitioner.
By this petition, the Petitioner challenges the order dated 23-1-2002 as well as the order dated 9-4-2002, passed by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Nagpur.
The Petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of M/s. Wires falling under Chapter sub-heading No. 7217.90 of the Central Excise Tariff. The Petitioner was availing the facility of monthly payment as per Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 2001.
On scrutiny of the records during the preventive checks by the department, it was noticed that the Petitioner had maintained RG-1, RG 23A Part I & II up to 30-9-2001, but invoices were issued up to Serial No. 215 dated 12-1-2002 and in respect of clearances effected under those invoices no central excise duty was paid. On the basis of the above material, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur passed an order on 23-1-2002 thereby withdrawing the facility of paying duty on monthly basis and directed the Petitioner to clear each consignment on payment of excise duty for a period of two months.
Challenging the said order, the present writ Petition was filed. On 20-2-2002, a Division Bench of this Court admitted the writ Petition and while granting stay of the order dated 23-1-2002, directed that the Respondents are at liberty to issue a fresh notice of hearing to the Petitioner and pass an order after following the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, a show-cause-notice was issued and after hearing the Petitioner, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur by his order dated 9-4-2002 confirmed the order passed on 23-1-2002. The Petition has been amended to challenge the said order dated 9-4-2002.
Perusal of the impugned orders clearly show that the first order dated 23-1-2002 was passed without hearing the Petitioner and the second order has been passed on 9-4-2002 after hearing the Petitioner but that order does not deal with any of the contentions raised by the Petitioner. Observing the principles of natural justice is not an empty formality. As a quasi judicial authority, it was the bounden duty of Shri Om Prakash the then Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur to deal with the contentions raised by the Petitioner. Failure on the part of Shri Om Prakash the then Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Nagpur to pass a reasoned order has led miscarriage of justice. In the absence of any reasons for rejecting the arguments of the Petitioner, the impugned orders cannot be sustained. Accordingly, both the impugned orders dated 23-1-2002 and 9-4-2002 are quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back for passing a fresh order on merits. We direct that the matter may be heard by any Competent Officer other than Shri Om Prakash, who has passed the impugned order dated 9-4-2002.
Rule is made absolute in the above terms. No order as to costs.