Rajputana Stainless Limited vs Union Of India

C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1330 of 2022

========================================================== RAJPUTANA STAINLESS LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA ========================================================== Appearance: MR HEMANT G DHARMADHIKARI WITH MS LALITA S PHADKE WITH MR DHAVAL SHAH(2354) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 NOTICE SERVED BY DS for the Respondent(s) No. 1 PRIYANK P LODHA(7852) for the Respondent(s) No. 2 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP N. BHATT

Date : 09/02/2023 ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE SONIA GOKANI)

1. The petitioners are before this Court challenging the ex-parte Order-in-Original dated

12.10.2020 passed by the Commissioner Central GST and

Central Excise, Gandhinagar Commissionerate,

Ahmedabad allegedly in gross violation of principles of

natural justice without hearing the petitioner or its

authorized representative.

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition

are as follows:

Page 1 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023

C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

2.1 The petitioner M/s Rajputana Stainless Limited,

is a company incorporated under Companies Act. M/s

Suraj Limited, for manufacture their final goods i.e. SS

pipes, was purchasing their raw material from the

petitioner company and the same are supplied by the

petitioner under the cover of central excise invoices on

payment of central excise duty. In the process of

manufacturing, SS pipes, SS scrap is generated. The

same is supplied by M/s Suraj Limited to the petitioner

under the cover of central excises invoices on payment of

duty.

2.2 It is the say of the petitioner that officers of

the preventive wing of Central Excise Department carried out the search in the premises of M/s Suraj Limited and

withdrew their record under the panchanama. The

suspicion on the part of the preventive team is that the

petitioner only issued the central excise invoices without

supply of goods. Therefore, M/s Suraj Limited has availed

Cenvat Credit of excise duty without receipt of goods

mentioned in the invoice and the allegations against the

petitioner had been that it abetted with Suraj limited in

Page 2 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

availing Cenvat Credit based on the invoices issued by

the petitioner without receipt of goods.

2.3 It is the say of the petitioner that no

investigation at its premise had taken place. However, on

the basis of the statements recorded under Section 14 of

the Central Excise Act and the ledger maintained by the

Suraj Limited, the department issued the show cause

notice on 17.12.2018 proposing to recover Cenvat Credit

amounting to Rs.3.97 crores (rounded off) from Suraj

Limited on the allegation that they availed cenvat of

excise duty without receipt of quantity of inputs and

proposing penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise

Rules on the petitioner for abetment.

2.4 It is further averred that on 19.7.2019, the

respondent no.2 issued a letter to the petitioner directing

to file reply to the show cause notice to which the

petitioner, on 25.7.2019, replied that they had not

received any show cause notice and thereby requested to

provide a copy of the same along with the relied upon

documents.

2.5 A copy of show cause notice of 17.2.2018 had

Page 3 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

been provided by the respondent no.2 on 2.8.2019.

2.6 On 23.3.2020, the Government of India

announced the nationwide lockdown on account of spread

of Covid-19 pandemic and which mandated the citizens

to stay at home and resulted into complete lockdown.

2.7 The department had fixed the personal hearing

on 13.4.2020. According to the petitioner, it was

impractical to have an access to the office of the

respondent to attend the hearing. The personal hearing,

since was scheduled on 3.4.2020, the petitioner could not

attend it.

2.8 The respondent no.2 again, on 21.9.2020, directed the petitioner to file reply to the show cause

notice on or before 23.9.2020. Learned advocate for the

petitioner, on 22.9.2020, had filed reply to the show

cause notice dated 17.2.2018 and rebutted the allegations.

2.9 The persons whose statement had been

recorded and relied upon in the show cause notice were

needed to be examined under Section 9D of the Central

Excise Act for placing reliance on the statements and

Page 4 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

cross-examination also was sought for by the petitioner

by separate application.

2.10 The original adjudicating authority, after

having received the reply, had not referred to the reply

in the order-in-original nor it granted examination or

cross-examination of the persons whose statements had

been recorded and relied upon and yet those statements

have been relied upon, hence this petition seeking

intervention of the Court.

2.11 According to the petitioner, the order is also

suffering from vice of contravention of provisions of

Section 33A of the Central Excise Act which

contemplates the opportunity of hearing go be granted minimum three times, whereas the original adjudicating

authority has granted the opportunity of personal hearing

only once and passed the order which is ex-parte.

Reliance is also placed on the circular no.1053/2/2017

dated 10.3.2017. Moreover, it is also the grievance of the

petitioner that the notice for personal hearing was

received on the evening of 9.10.2020 and hence hearing

could not be attended and fresh notice for personal

Page 5 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

hearing was requested.

3. In the above premise, the petitioner sought the

following prayers:

"10(A) That Your Lordships may be pleased to call for records and proceedings before Respondent No.2, the Commissioner of CGST and Service Tax, Gandhinagar Commissionerate at Ahmedabad to verify the noting of directions on the file;

(B) That Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside the impugned ex-parte order in Original No.AHM-

EXCUS-003-COM-031-20-21 dated 12.10.2020 passed by Respondent No.2 (Annexure-"A"), and be further pleased to direct Respondent No.2, to allow the petitioner to cross examine the persons whose statements are relied upon in the show cause notice;

(C) That Your Lordships may be pleased to stay the operation of impugned order dated 12.10.2020 till the hearing and disposal of this Special Civil Application; (D) Any other further relief as may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also please be granted."

Page 6 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

4. This Court, on issuance of notice on 3.2.2022

(Coram: J.B.Pardiwala,J (as His Lordship then was) and

Nisha M Thakore,J) passed the following order, while

granting interim protection to the petitioner:

"1. We have heard Mr. Dharmadhikari, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Dhaval Shah, the learned counsel appearing for the writ applicant.

2. The subject matter of challenge in the present writ application is the legality, validity and properitory of the order passed by the Commissioner dated 12.10.2020 raising a demand of Rs.3,97,36,988/- towards CENVAT credit under the provisions of Rule 14 of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004 read with Section 11(A)(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned order originated from a show cause notice issued by the Authority dated 17.04.2018.

3. It appears that the writ applicant filed a detailed reply to the show cause notice. The respondent No.2 vide its letter dated 05.10.2020 issued a Notice of personal hearing scheduled on 09.10.2020. It is the case of the writ applicant that the said letter was dispatched by the respondent No.2 on 06.10.2020 and the same was received at the factory gate of the writ applicant in the evening hours of 09.10.2020 i.e. the day on which the hearing was fixed.

4. The learned counsel further pointed out that the impugned order is also violative of the provisions of Section

Page 7 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

33A of the Act, 1944, which inter-alia contemplates that an opportunity of hearing should be granted for a minimum three times. He further pointed out that on 12.10.2020, the lawyer for the writ applicant vide E-mail communicated to the respondent No.2 that his client has received a Notice of personal hearing only in the evening on 09.10.2020 and therefore, the matter may be adjourned to any other date.

5. It appears that the respondent No.2 proceeded to pass the impugned order in original. It is the case of the writ applicant that he was not afforded a reasonable opportunity of hearing in as much as the writ applicant also wanted to cross examined the persons who have been named in the show cause notice like transporters etc.

6. Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 17.03.2022.

7. Let there be an ad-interim order in terms of paragraph 10(C).

8. Direct service for respondent No.2 and service to respondent No.1 - Union of India through E-mail is permitted."

5. The affidavit-in-reply is filed by Commissioner,

CGST & C.Ex.Gandhinagar Commissionerate, at

Ahmedabad denying all allegations. It is reiterated that

M/s Suraj Limited has availed Cenvat credit on the

strength of invoices issued by petitioner without

Page 8 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

corresponding delivery of the goods. This has emerged

during the investigation as per the invoice wise details

called for from the RTO office. Moreover, it is urged that

the show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner

on 17.12.2018 requiring them to have a written

submission within 30 days of issuance of the SCN.

However, for more than one year, the petitioner failed to

respond and when the department asked it to reply, on

25.7.2019, addressed an e-mail to the department that

they have not received a copy of SCN. According to the

respondent, show cause notice has already been served

on the petitioner through R.P.A.D. which has been

dispatched on 19.12.2018. It was only on account of his

request that a second time, the SCN had been served upon him where they were asked to furnish the reply.

5.1. The personal hearing was fixed on 13.4.2022

which he failed to respond to and the petitioner asked to

submit the final reply on 23.9.2020. Without naming the

persons, without providing any justification for cross-

examination of witnesses, a request is made for cross-

examination of witnesses and since adjudication process

was unduly being delayed, virtual hearing of the matter

Page 9 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

was fixed on 19.10.2020 which was communicated to the

petitioner but no one appeared nor the petitioner sent

any timely request seeking adjournment. The petitioner

since failed to appear for the personal hearing, earlier it

was fixed on 13.4.2020 and again on 9.10.2020.

5.2. On merit and on the aspect of rescheduling of

personal hearing of the date of 9.10.2020, it is contended

that no request for adjournment has been sought. Much

has been contended on 33A of the Central Excise Act to

urge that it is a discretionary of the adjudicating

authority to grant adjournment subject to sufficient cause

being shown by the petitions. All other contentions have

been denied.

6. The affidavit-in-rejoinder on the part of the

petitioner reiterates all those grounds which have been

raised before this Court seeking the intervention for

breach of principles of natural justice.

7. We have heard extensively the learned

advocates on both the sides and the submissions may

not be required to be repeated at this stage.

Page 10 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023

C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

8. On the aspect of non-service of the show cause

notice issued on 17.2.2018, not only there is a contention

with regard to the service through R.P.A.D. mode on

19.12.2018, it appears that request has been made on

the part of the petitioner vide e-mail dated 25.7.2019

that the petitioner had not received the copy of the

same and hence the department had already furnished

copy of SCN, reply to which has also been given. This

issue may not be necessary to be further dialected for

the fact that notice on 17.2.2018 has reached quite

belatedly in the month of December, 2018 through

R.P.A.D. and even otherwise, the request has been

already fulfilled by supplying the very show cause notice

after having received the petitioner's e-mail on 27.9.2019 addressed to the department. Hence, this issue raised

will not be necessary for the Court to further consider

for the purpose of examining whether there was a

breach of principles of natural justice.

9. The two issues that require consideration are

non-availment of opportunity of cross-examination of the

witnesses and also non-grant of personal hearing as

provided under the statute and the circular which has

Page 11 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

been issued by the respondent.

10. This Court also, at the time of issuance of

notice, had referred to the Section 33 of the Central

Excise Act where the petitioner has pointed out that the

action is violative of Section 33A of the Central Excise

Act which otherwise, contemplates an opportunity of

hearing to be granted minimum three times. We need to

also refer to the Circular No.1053/2/2017 dated 10.3.2017

issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs,

Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi,

where subject is `Master Circular on Show Cause Notice,

Adjudication and Recovery Regarding'. 14.3 and 14.4

which speaks of the personal hearing shall need to be reproduced.

"14.3 Personal hearing : After hearing given a fair opportunity to the noticee for replying to the show cause notice, the adjudicating authority may proceed to fix a date and time for personal hearing in the case and request the assessee to appear before him for a personal hearing by himself or through an authorised representative. At least three opportunities of personal hearing should be given with sufficient interval of time so that the noticee may avail opportunity of being heard. Separate communications

Page 12 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

should be made to the noticee for each opportunity of personal hearing. In fact separate letter for each hearing / extension should be issued at sufficient interval. The Adjudicating authority may, if sufficient cause is shown, at any stage of proceeding adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing. However, no such adjournment shall be granted more than three times to a noticee.

14.4 Record of personal hearing: The adjudicating authority must maintain a record of personal hearing and written submission made during the personal hearing. Evidence of personal hearing and written submission on record is very important while adjudicating the case."

11. It makes it quite clear that the department had, by way of the present circular streamlined and

reiterated the requirement of grant of three opportunities

of personal hearing with sufficient interval to the noticee

who can avail the opportunity of being heard. It also

insist on the separate communications to be made to the

noticee for each opportunity of personal hearing. In fact,

the separate communication for each hearing extension

would be issued at sufficient interval. The adjudicating

authority can also at any stage of proceedings adjourned

Page 13 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

the hearing for the reasons to be recorded in writing,

however, no such adjournment as mentioned in the

circular be granted more than three times to a noticee.

Maintaining of record of personal hearing and written

submissions made during the personal hearing is also

insisted upon by this very circular. It also follows that

the adjudication order should be a speaking order which

should stand the test of legality, fairness and reason of

the appellate forum.

12. It is not in dispute that the personal hearing

was granted on 13.4.2020 for the first time by the

authority concerned. This was communication sent after

the lockdown from 23.3.2020. The petitioner had categorically averred that on account of the fact that the

pandemic due to covid-19 did not allow the petitioner to

represent its case before the authority concerned as the

hearing was not virtual hearing. The second time the

hearing was granted was 9.10.2020. It is urged that the

letter of 5.10.2020 which rescheduled the date of hearing

on 9.10.2020 was received by the petitioner on 9.10.2020

itself in the evening. There could not have been

possibility of seeking any adjournment although the

Page 14 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

grievance has been made by the respondent, even

without entering into the rival contention as to what

point of time this communication for personal hearing

was received by the petitioner. The fact is not in

challenge that it had been received on 9.10.2020. In that

eventuality, to insist on someone to appear on that very

day even if it was a virtual hearing would have been an

impossibility. We notice that in the affidavit-in-reply, the

reference on the part of the petitioner is of the letter

dated 5.10.2020 rescheduling the date of personal hearing

to 9.10.2020 in absence of any clarity wherefrom the

communication dated 5.10.2020 was sent by e-mail, for

the present, this aspect remains uncleared. We are in

receipt of this communication of 5.10.2020 was on the very day. For present, it appears to have been received

on 9.10.2020 as per the version of the petitioner. Be that

as it may. Without entering into that aspect, in wake of

the breach as noted at the initial stage while issuing the

notice and as is also apparent from the circular

1053/3/2017 dated 10.3.2017 where the board itself

expects the officer concerned to avail opportunity of

personal hearing with sufficient interval of time so that

the noticee can avail the opportunity of being heard and

Page 15 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

the insistence on the part of the board for separate

communications to be made to the noticee for each

opportunity, there appears to be a clear breach.

13. We also notice that the request on the part of

the petitioner tendered at the time of final reply on

23.9.2020 in its letter dated 22.9.2020, the petitioner had

made a request for cross-examination of the witnesses on

two counts- one that they did not name the persons and

two there was no justification for cross-examination of

the witnesses, on the ground that the process of

adjudication was unduly delayed and therefore the virtual

hearing was fixed on 9.10.2020 when nobody appeared on

behalf of the petitioner nor he had asked for any adjournment, this order-in-original has been passed.

14. We notice that it was a time when all the

activities of the entire nation had come to a grinding

hault. The first time when the opportunity of personal

hearing was given was on 13.4.2020 when the pandemic

was at its peak due to Covid-19 virus. There could have

been any possibility of anybody appearing in person,

therefore, after a substantial gap when the second

Page 16 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

opportunity was given receipt of the same on the day on

which the personal hearing was fixed since is an issue

with absence of the third opportunity, the court needs to

be intervened.

15. With regard to the cross-examination of the

names of the witnesses which were required to be cross-

examination, will need to be dealt with by the officer

concerned when the matter is remanded for the purpose

of adjudication afresh from the stage where it was left.

It is required to be remanded to the officer concerned.

16. The Apex Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries V/s Commissioner of C.Ex., Kolkata-II, reported in CDJ 2015 SC 1277, was dealing with a case where the assessee had not been allowed cross-

examination of the witnesses by the adjudicating

authority though the statement of those witnesses were

made the basis of the impugned order. This was held "to

be a serious flaw which made the order nullity

inasmuchas it amounted to violation of principles of

natural justice because of which the assessee was

adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the

Page 17 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

order of the Commissioner was based upon the

statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even

when the assessee disputed the correctness of the

statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating

Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee.

It would be pertinent to note that the impugned order

passed by the Adjudicating Authority he has specifically

mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the

assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and

the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the

Adjudicating Authority. As far as the Tribunal is

concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally

untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-

examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which would not be in possession of

the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-

factory prices remain static. It was not for the Tribunal

to have guess work as to for what purposes the

appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealers and

what extraction the appellant wanted from them." The

Apex Court further held in paragraph 7 as under:

"7. As mentioned above, the appellant had contested the truthfulness of the statements of these two witnesses and

Page 18 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023 C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

wanted to discredit their testimony for which purpose it wanted to avail the opportunity of cross-examination. That apart, the Adjudicating Authority simply relied upon the price list as maintained at the depot to determine the price for the purpose of levy of excise duty. Whether the goods were, in fact, sold to the said dealers / witnesses at the price which is mentioned in the price list itself could be the subject matter of cross-examination. Therefore, it was not for the Adjudicating Authority to presuppose as to what could be the subject matter of the cross-examination and make the remarks as mentioned above. We may also point out that on an earlier occasion when the matter came before this Court in Civil Appeal No.2216 of 2000, order dated 17.03.2005 [2005 (187) E.L.T. A33 (S.C.), Commissioner v. Andaman Timber Industries Pvt. Ltd.] was passed remitting the case back to the Tribunal with the directions to decide the appeal on merits giving its reasons for accepting or rejecting the submissions."

17. The authority concerned is seeking to rely

upon certain statements following the various decisions of

this Court, the dialect of which is not necessary and the

decision of the Apex Court is sufficient enough to bring

to the fore the requirement of permitting the cross-

examination of witnesses whose statements are sought to

be relied upon by the authorities.

Page 19 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023

C/SCA/1330/2022 ORDER DATED: 09/02/2023

18. With that, in view of the above discussion, we

are of the opinion that the order impugned passed by

the authority concerned deserves to be quashed and set

aside remitting the matter to the stage where it was left

for the authority concerned to avail an opportunity

within two weeks of the date of receipt of copy of this

order through e-mail @ dharmadhikarihemant@gmail.com

as also through R.P.A.D. Once this opportunity of

personal hearing is granted, without seeking any further

adjournment, the petitioner shall cooperate. Let the

adjudicating authority decide the issue of the cross-

examination of the witnesses in two weeks thereafter.

The entire process of adjudication shall be expedited. All

concerned shall cooperate.

(SONIA GOKANI, J)

(SANDEEP N. BHATT,J) SRILATHA

Page 20 of 20 Downloaded on : Mon Feb 13 20:55:00 IST 2023