TMI Blog1989 (1) TMI 141X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the petitioner be afforded a reasonable opportunity to make representations on merits and adjudication taken up afresh by the Principal Collector of Central Excise or some other Collector of Central Excise of equivalent rank as the respondent and render justice ..."." 4. The facts of the case are : The petitioner company is manufacturing Hydrochloric Acid (HC1) falling under Item 14 of the Tariff. A show cause notice was issued on 12-5-1983 by the Collector of Central Excise and Customs, Madurai for adjudication on the ground that the assessee had contravened the provisions of Rule 9(1), 173B, sub-rule (1), (2)(ii) 10 of Rule 173C, read with Rule 173F and 173G of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, The petitioner was directed to give the representation and he was asked to indicate in the representation whether the case has to be heard in person for adjudication, and it is further stated that if no cause is shown against the action proposed to be taken within 30 days of the receipt of the said notice, the case will be decided ex parte. The petitioner replied on 22-6-1983 termed as 'Preliminary reply" raising two grounds namely, the Collector has no jurisdiction to decide t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt was ordered in W.P. No. 3467 of 1988. On 20-4-1988 the learned counsel for Department gave an oral undertaking before Sivasubramaniam, J. that the respondent would not proceed with the matter. However, it seems the Writ Petition No. 3467 of 1988 was dismissed by Sivasubramaniam, J. on 8-9-1988 as withdrawn. On 11-5-1988 a notice was issued to the petitioner company calling for the personal hearing on 6-6-1988. On 3-6-1988, the petitioner company requested an adjournment, by way of a telegram. On 6-6-1988, the respondent fixed the personal hearing of the petitioner company to be held on 10-6-1988 (Friday) at 3.00 p.m. and intimated the same to the petitioner by way of a telegram. It seems one of the senior Counsel of this Court, Mr. S.V. Subramanian appeared before the respondent on 10-6-1988 and sought for an adjournment. It was refused and arguments were heard and the case was closed at 5.00 p.m. on the same day. It is stated before this Court that the learned Senior Counsel asked for time to file a written representation by 12-6-1988, since 11-6-1988 and 12-6-1988 happened to be Saturday and Sunday. But an order dated 10-6-1988 was served on the petitioner by a special messeng ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... idavit that if really the petitioner is interested in disposing of the matter he could have utilised these five years from 1983 for preparing a lengthy written representation, which could have been submitted. The reason given in the counter-affidavit for the refusal to grant any further time is as follows :- "If a person cannot prepare a written reply in a period of five years such a personal will never prepare any reply even after any length of further time......" 6. Mr. V.P. Raman, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contends, without going into the merits of the case, that no proper opportunity is given to the petitioner and that the principles of natural justice are violated. The learned counsel further submits that the facts itself will show that the respondent was not prepared to wait till Monday morning i.e. on 13-6-1988, to receive the written representations from the petitioner company and then pass orders. The learned counsel further states that he is surprised by the attitude shown by the respondent and submits that the matter has to go back for proper consideration on merits taking into consideration the written representations submitted by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order. 8. Mr. V.P. Raman, the learned counsel for petitioner brings to my notice the decision A.V. Venkateswaran v.RS. Madhwani (A.I.R. 1961 S.C. 1506) whether the Principle of alternate remedy applies in cases of violation of principles of natural justice and submits that the reply given to the show cause notice in the year 1986 was only on the question of jurisdiction and limitation, that no reply was given on merits at that time and that the reply on merits is given only now. The learned counsel further contends that reading of the counter affidavit itself will show that it is a fit matter to go before some other Collector and that he is prepared to face any other officer other than the Officer who has passed the present impugned order. 9. I have given careful considerations to the arguments advanced by both, Mr. V.P. Raman, the learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Advocate General, for the respondent. 10. The short point that arises for consideration is whether the principles of natural justice have been violated on the facts and circumstances of this case. 11. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the applicability of the principles of natural jus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Sales Tax Officer and was a matter which could properly be raised only in an appeal under Section 23(1) of the Act and that the Act provided for a complete machinery to challenge an order of assessment and the orders of assessment in the case could only be challenged by the mode prescribed by the Act and not by a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution." The unreported decision of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A. No. 257 of 1988 {M/s. Z. Raja ReddyFactory, Gudi^atham v. The Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Others) dated 2-3-1988, relied upon the learned Advocate General, squarely applies to the facts of this case and the Division Bench in that case observed as follows :- "...... The Tribunal has necessary jurisdiction to decide all questions of law and fact. If in spite of approaching the Tribunal, the appellant is in any manner aggrieved on a question of law, he can seek a reference to this Court. The Act having conceived of a particular manner of remedy, no valid ground is made out to entertain the writ petition in spite of such effective remedies conceived of under the Act......". 13. In this case, it is not disputed that the pet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
