Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 399 (ALL)

N. S. Papers Ltd. v. Union of India

2014-02-05

D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, DILIP GUPTA

body2014
JUDGMENT Dilip Gupta, J. Following a notice to show cause, an order of adjudication has been passed on 31 December 2013 by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut-I. The order of adjudication is subject to an appeal which is provided under Section 35-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Hence, there is no reason as to why the petitioner should not be relegated to the remedy of an appeal. But it has been submitted that the petition may be entertained as the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice since several documents which were relied upon and of which inspection was sought by the petitioner were not furnished. 2. Having perused the record, we are of the view that the issue as to whether there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice in the present case at all is itself one which requires a detailed examination of facts. It will not be appropriate for the writ Court to undertake this exercise under Article 226 of the Constitution. This is one of those cases where an order of adjudication was passed after furnishing to the assessee an opportunity of personal hearing, though, we are conscious that in a given case it can still be urged that the principles of natural justice have been violated. 3. Admittedly, the petitioner did file a reply to the notice to show cause and was also provided an opportunity of a personal hearing. Whether the adjudicating authority has failed to supply crucial documents which were necessary for the defence and whether the non-supply of a particular document has resulted in prejudice is a matter which, in our view, should be examined by the appellate authority. The issue as to whether there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice, as noted earlier, is itself one where a considerable amount of scrutiny of facts would be necessary. In this view of the matter, such a dispute can only be appropriately resolved in exercise of the appellate jurisdiction. 4. Hence, in the presence of an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal, there is no reason for the Court to entertain the petition under Article 226. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the remedy of an appeal before the Tribunal would be onerous in view of the requirement of pre-deposit. 4. Hence, in the presence of an efficacious statutory remedy of appeal, there is no reason for the Court to entertain the petition under Article 226. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the remedy of an appeal before the Tribunal would be onerous in view of the requirement of pre-deposit. That, in our view, would be no justification at all for the Court to breach the discipline of the statutory provisions contained in the Central Excise Act, 1944. Besides, the issue as to whether undue hardship has been shown so as to make out a case for waiver of pre-deposit is also within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances, no case for interference is made out. 6. We, accordingly, dismiss the writ petition leaving it open to the petitioner to pursue the remedy of appeal.