K. Narayanan v. the Commissioner of Central
Case brief
What is this about?
The Court held there was no violation of natural justice as the petitioner deliberately delayed proceedings and failed to avail multiple opportunities for reply and hearing. The writ petition is closed with liberty to appeal to CESTAT.
What did the court decide?
Writ petition closed with liberty to file an appeal before the CESTAT within three months.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 13.08.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.RAMESH
W.P.No. 23986 of 2004
K.Narayanan .. Petitioner
Vs. The Commissioner Central Excise, Central Revenue Building, Beebikulam, Maduai-625 002. .. Respondent
PRAYER : Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in Order in Original No.2/2004 dated 29.6.2004, on the file of the Commissioner of Central Excise, Madurai / Respondent, quash the same and consequently direct the respondent and grant permission for cross examination of witnesses and provide time for filing of replies and give an opportunity of hearing before passing an adjudication order in SCN No.V/52/15/15/2001, dated 19.9.2002.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bharanidharan For Respondent : Mr.T.Pramodkumar Chopda Senior Panel Counsel ORDER
One of the main grounds raised in the present writ petition, challenging the order in original No.02/2004 passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise, Madurai, is that the order is in violation of the principles of natural justice, since the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order violated principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and delay adjudication.
Whether the writ petition is maintainable before this Court given the availability of an appeal remedy under the Central Excise Act.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
K.Narayanan
- respondent
The Commissioner Central Excise
Coram
M.S.RAMESH
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court