Gujarat High Court
Waghbakriwala Rayons & vs Commissioner Of Central Excise And ... on 26 November, 2014
Author: Akil Kureshi
Bench: Akil Kureshi, Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/15279/2014 ORDER
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 15279 of 2014
================================================================
WAGHBAKRIWALA RAYONS & 1....Petitioner(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SURAT I & 1....Respondent(s)
================================================================
Appearance:
MR DHAVAL SHAH, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
MR. S S IYER, ADVOCATE for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 - 2
================================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
Date : 26/11/2014
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Draft amendment is allowed.
The petitioner has challenged an order dated 5.2.2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal to the extent it imposes a condition of the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.20 lakhs upon which the proceedings would be remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration.
Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal was not correct in recording that the petitioner had indulged in delaying the adjudication proceedings. He submitted that soon after receipt of the show cause notice, the petitioner had asked Page 1 of 2 C/SCA/15279/2014 ORDER for copies of documents from the department. A copy of which was also marked to the adjudicating authority. Such documents were not supplied. For the show cause notice which was issued on 31.1.2006 the hearing was fixed on 4.2.2013 for the first time. During this entire period, the petitioner cannot be blamed for delay since the department itself did not take up the proceedings for hearing. The Tribunal therefore, committed an error in imposing the condition which was too onerous for the petitioner to discharge since the business has stopped. He clarified that since the manufacturing unit had closed down, the communications of date of hearing were not received by the petitioner and hence no representation before the adjudicating authority.
Issue notice returnable on 17.12.2014.
Direct service to respondent no.1 is permitted.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.) raghu Page 2 of 2