TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . However, it is alleged by the petitioner, the documents collected from the respondent, were sent to the head office at Chennai. It appears that this stand has not been substantiated before the respondent nor before this Court by way of any documents. The facts would lead to irresistible conclusion that the petitioner, despite having knowledge of the proceedings, did not choose to submit their reply to the show cause notices, inspite of sufficient indulgence granted to them. Thus, the fault lies with the petitioner and they cannot claim that it is a case of violation of principles of natural justice. This Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petitions challenging the Order-in-Original on the ground that the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy before the CESTAT under Section 35G of the CEA, 1944 - petition dismissed being not maintainable. - W.P.Nos.28582 to28587 of 2016 and W.M.P.Nos.24657 to 24662 of 2016, W.P.No.28582 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 27-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For the Petitioner : Mr. C. Saravanan For the Respondent : Mrs. R. Hemalatha, CGSC ORDER The petitioner in these Writ Petitions are Units, which are engaged in manuf ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etitioner vide letter dated 05.12.2015, and once again refixed the personal hearing on 16.12.2015 and/or alternatively to 21.12.2015. The petitioner's counsel sent a letter on 19.12.2015, which was received by the respondent on 21.12.2015, requesting for re-fixing the personal hearing to last week of January 2016. The petitioner also filed their reply to the show cause notice during February 2016. Accordingly to the petitioner, without giving opportunity of personal hearing, the respondent passed the impugned Order-in-Original, dated 05.01.2016, which is challenged in these Writ Petitions. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not challenged the impugned Order-in-Original on merits, but has challenged it on the ground that it is in violation of principles of natural justice and the respondent has not followed the principles of audi alteram partem. That the respondent did not consider the petitioner's letter dated 15.12.2015, and the representation sent by their counsel, dated 19.12.2015. Further, in the impugned show cause notice, the payment effected by the petitioner to the tune of ₹ 1,22,28,880/-, which was excess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear for the personal hearing on both the above dates i.e., on 16.12.2015 and 21.12.2015 and they also did not file their reply to the show cause notices issued to them. However, a letter dated 19.12.2015, was received from the counsel for the petitioner, which was received in the office of the respondent on 21.12.2015, but he did not contain any authorisation to represent the petitioner with regard to the subject show cause notices. Therefore, it is contended that the petitioner having failed to file a reply to the show cause notices and having not turned up for the personal hearing inspite of ample opportunity, the Adjudicating Authority was constrained to decide the case ex parte based on the evidence available on record. Thus, it is submitted that chronology of events clearly proves that the petitioner was deliberately not co-operating with the adjudication proceedings. Reference was made to Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and it is submitted that no adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a party during the proceedings. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Saketh India Ltd., vs. UOI reported in 2002 (143) ELT 274 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. The respondent appears to have obliged such request and sent another letter on 18.09.2015, intimating the date for collecting photocopies. It is thereafter by notice dated 23.10.2015, personal hearing was fixed on 03.11.2015. One day prior to the hearing date on 02.11.2015, the petitioner sent a letter to re-fix the personal hearing to 3rd week of January 2016. However, such indulgence was not granted, but the personal hearing was re-scheduled to 16.11.2015. Once again, the petitioner requested for re-fixing the personal hearing for which they received a notice from the respondent fixing their personal hearing on 07.12.2015, which was also intimated to the Director of the petitioner over phone. On 05.12.2015, the petitioner addressed the respondent that the documents were soaked in the rain water and requested to re-fix the personal hearing to 15th January, 2016. On 08.12.2015, a notice was sent fixing the personal hearing on 21.12.2015. Once again, the petitioner sent a letter on 19.12.2015, requesting for adjournment. The respondent did not entertain the request, but proceeded to pass the Order-in-Original. 9. The above facts would clearly demonstrate that this is not a cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
