Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Learned Advocate for the petitioners submits that, the impugned order was passed on the basis of a show-cause notice dated October 17, 2012. He submits that, the show-cause notice is vague and has been issued on the basis of assumption. It does not contain any allegation that, the first petitioner is liable to pay Service Tax. He submits that, the burden of proof is on the taxing authority to show that, a particular receipt is taxable and relies upon 1996 (87) E.L.T. page 12 (S.C) (Union of India v. Garware Nylons Ltd.) in support of such contention. Referring to 2010 (258) E.L.T. 48 (Cal.) (Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia v. Lord's Chemicals Ltd.) and 2007 (217) E.L.T. page 343 (Cal.) (Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. Hindalco Industries Ltd.) he submits that, a show-cause notice cannot be issued on the basis of presumptions. He relies upon 1983 (13) E.L.T. page 1342 (S.C.) (East India Commercial Co. Ltd. Calcutta v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta) and submits that, notice issued contrary to the law laid down by the High Court would be invalid and the proceedings themselves would be without jurisdiction. He relies upon 2011 (266) E.L.T.) page 422 (S.C.) (Oryx Fisheries (P) Ltd. v. Union of India) and submits that, the persons proceeded against must be told of the charges against him so that he can take his defence and prove his innocence. In the event, a new case is made out such a course of action would be without jurisdiction. He relies upon 2006 (196) E.LT. page 400 (S.C.) (Hindustan Poles Corporation v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta) and submits that, the revenue has to apply its mind before issuance of a show-cause notice. He refers to the merits of the matters and submits that, the show-cause notice does not analyze the activities of the first petitioner. The receipts which are claimed to be taxable are not taxable. The department has taken figures from the balance-sheet of the first petitioner which is bad in law. The department has also acted in violation of the principles of natural justice without putting the petitioner on notice that the receipts of the first petitioner are taxable under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1994. Referring to Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, as applicable to service tax in view of Section 83 of the Finance Act, 1994, he submits that, the authority has no jurisdiction to impose penalty on the Directors of the first petitioner being the second and the third petitioner. He questions the ability of the department to institute any criminal proceeding against the petitioners. He submits that, an order passed under Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 is not appealable.

Referring to Section 9AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944, he submits that no appeal is provided against an order passed under such section.

Learned Advocate for the department submits that, the impugned order is appealable. The petitioners have not alleged violation of the principles of natural justice in the sense that the petitioners were afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing. The issues raised by the petitioners have been duly considered. The impugned order is reasoned. The contentions of the petitioners raised in the present writ petition can be raised in the appellate forum. The petitioners are seeking to avoid the pre-deposit of an appeal by filing the writ petition.