Allowed

Tanzeem Printers Pvt.Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Central of Central Excise, Mumbai-I

Bombay HC23 Mar 2015CEXA/95/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Bombay High Court held that an ex parte order violated the principles of natural justice due to lack of prior notice. The appeal allowed and impugned order quashed, matter remitted to the Tribunal for adjudication after notice to both parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed and set aside; matter remitted to the learned CESTAT for hearing afresh after issuing notice of hearing to both parties.

Tanzeem Printers Pvt.Ltd. Vs the… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Bombay HC (2015)

1/3

CEXA95-23.3

PNP

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶5

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶6

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO.95 OF 2014

¶7

Tanzeem Printers Pvt. Ltd. versus The Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-1

¶8

...Appellant.

¶9

..Respondent.

¶10

Mr. Prakash Shah i/b PDS Legal for the Appellant. Mr. Shailesh Kantharia i/b Anamika Malhotra for the Respondent.

¶11

….. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & A.S. GADKARI, JJ.

¶12

P.C. :

¶13

The Appellant has approached this Court being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CESTAT dated 21^st June 2013 thereby dismissing the appeal filed by the present Appellant.

¶14

The Appellant had approached the learned CESTAT being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise thereby confirming a demand for an amount of Rs.6,39,569/- along with interest and penalty of equal amount. The Revenue had also filed an appeal before the learned CESTAT being aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The learned CESTAT dismissed the appeal of the Appellant and allowed the appeal of the Revenue. Being aggrieved thereby, the Appellant approached the Apex Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 27^th

2/3

CEXA95-23.3

PNP

November, 2008 in Civil Appeal No.7034 of 2001 and by order dated 16^th July, 2012 in Civil Appeal No.4366 of 2009 allowed the appeals and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication before the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the appeal of the Appellant and allowed the appeal of the Revenue.

¶19

The basic grievance raised in the present Petition is that prior to hearing of the appeal, no notice came to be issued to the Appellant and as such, the order is in breach of the principles of natural justice.

¶20

Mr. Shah, learned counsel submitted that the very issue of passing an order adverse to the interest of a party without following the principles of natural justice is a question of law and as such, it is not necessary to go to the other issues.

¶21

Mr. Kantharia, learned counsel on the contrary submits that no issue of law is at all raised in the present Appeal and as such, the Appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

On the request made by us, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has not been in a position to place on record a copy of the notice which came to be issued to the Appellant prior to the impugned order being passed.

3/3

CEXA95-23.3

PNP

By now, it is a settled principle of law that every order which adversely affects the rights of a party has to be preceded by the principles of natural justice unless the provision expressly or by necessary implication provides for the exclusion of the same.

¶27

In any case, every quasi judicial authority is bound to follow the principles of natural justice.

¶28

In view of the matter, we find that the Appeal deserves to be allowed on the short ground.

¶29

The impugned order is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the learned CESTAT for hearing it afresh in accordance with law. Needless to say that the learned Tribunal shall give a notice of hearing to both the parties before it adjudicates the matter.

¶30

(A.S. Gadkari, J.)

¶31

(B.R. Gavai, J.)

Tanzeem Printers Pvt.Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Central of Central Excise, Mumbai-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanzeem Printers Pvt.Ltd. v. the Commissioner of Central of Central Excise, Mumbai-I

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sahakar Global Ltd. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Lanja Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Lanja Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Shri. Bhagwan Arjun Darade Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Addl. Chief Secretary, Home Dept

The Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax, Commissionarate, Daman Vs Firomenich Aromatics (India) Pvt.Ltd.

Benudhar Samal Vs Union of India and Anr.

M/S. Fidesta Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Union 3 Others