Consecutive dates of Hearing on very Short Notice are Violative of S. 33A of Central Excise Act: Allahabad HC [Read Order]
It was held that the purpose of restricting the total number of adjournments was to allow the proceedings to cease promptly
Allahabad High Court – Consecutive Dates of Hearing on Short Notice are Violative – Central Excise Act – taxscan
Allahabad High Court – Consecutive Dates of Hearing on Short Notice are Violative – Central Excise Act – taxscan
In a recent case, the Allahabad High Court has held that fixing consecutive dates of hearing on very short notice is violative under Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994.
M/s Avshesh Kumar, the petitioner was served with an order dated 23.03.2023 by which a tax demand and various penalties were levied on him, the total of which was more than Rs.47,50,000. It was the petitioner's case that he was served with said notice in March of 2024.
The Revenue argued that the notice in the adjudication proceedings was sent to the petitioner through email and speed post and that the said notice stated that the petitioner was given opportunities for personal hearing on 13.02.2023, 17.02.2023, and 20.02.2023. The revenue submitted that none of these opportunities were taken up and neither did the petitioner pray for an adjournment on any of the aforementioned dates.
Counsel for the petitioner relied on Section 33A of the Central Excise Act, 1994 to submit that the respondents did not have the authority to fix three consecutive dates of hearing by a single notice, that too within seven days. It was submitted that this was done only with the object of defeating the purpose and intent of Section 33A of the Act.
Petitioner argued that the impugned order was passed without fixing any other date and without issuing any further notice, thereby violating the Principles of Natural Justice.
The Court noted that the written instructions produced by the Revenue indicated that the notice was indeed dispatched to the petitioner via email on the aforementioned date. However, the petitioner denied receiving such notice. Regarding the notice said to be issued via speed post, the petitioner submitted that they did not get it at the registered office where the respondent might have sent the speed post.
Considering the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Regent Overseas, the Court held that just because the total number of adjournments had been confined to three, that did not imply a denial of the opportunity of hearing. It was held that the purpose of restricting the total number of adjournments was to allow the proceedings to cease promptly.
The Court held that the petitioner's right of hearing had been “seriously impaired”, relegating him to an alternate remedy was pointless. The Court set aside the adjudication order dated 23.03.2023 if the petitioner were to deposit a sum of Rs.5,00,00/- within one month from the date of the hearing. Further, the Court stated that the adjudication order dated 23.03.2023 was to be treated as part of the show-cause notice, to which he had the liberty to reply within a week and that the course of proceedings would then continue, as established by law.
The division bench comprising Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Donadi Ramesh held that the purpose of confining the total number of adjournments was not to deny the opportunity of hearing to the notice but to regulate how the adjudication proceedings were to be conducted.
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
