Allowed

Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise

Telangana HC3 Nov 2023CEA/22/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against the CESTAT order held unsustainable as the Tribunal failed to provide a reasonable hearing opportunity after a four-year gap. The High Court set aside the order and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for fresh hearing on merits.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside and matter remitted to the Tribunal to decide appeal on merits after granting due opportunity of hearing.

Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. Vs… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Telangana HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT^{FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD

¶2

FRIDAY,THE THIRD^{DAY OF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND^AND TWENTY^THREE

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE^{P.SAM KOSHY} THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶5

CENTRAL EXCISE APPEALS^{NO:22OF 20'19}

¶6

Between:

¶7

Reliance Cellulose^{ProductsLtd, 3E, Surya Towers,S.P. Road, Secunderabad,} Represented by^{its Chairmanand Managing DirectorShyam Sunder Jhunihunwala.}

¶8

...APPELLANT

¶9

AND

¶10

Commissioner of Central^{Excise, Customs andServiceTax- Hyderabad I' Kendriya} Shulk Bhavan, LB. Stadium^{Road,Basheerbagh, Hyderabad,Telanagana} -^{5O0 004}

¶11

...RESPONDENT

¶12

Central Excise Appeal Under^{Section35 G of Central ExciseAct'} 1944 against Final Order^{No.AJ31389/2018, dated. 23-10'2018 on thefile of the} Customi, Excise and^{Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench , Hyderabad} preferred against the order of the Commissioner^{of Customs} ,^{Excise & Service} Tax⁽ nppeits -l) Hyderabad^{Order-in- Appeal No.15 l20OS( H-1) CE dated 27--} 02-2b0g^preferred against^{the orderof the Assistant Commissionerof Customs&} Excise A, Division, Hyderabad^Order -in-^{OriginalNo. 1712018dated 22-10-2008'}

¶13

lA NO: 1 OF 2019

¶14

Petition under Order 39^{Rule 1 and 2 R:/w. Section151of CPC praying} that in the circumstances^{stated in the affidavit filed in supportof the petition, the} High Court may be^{pleasedto pass an order restrainingthe Respondent from} taliing any coercive steps^{against the Petitionerfor recovery of the disputed} demind as^per Order-in-Original^{No. 1712008,daled 22'10-2008, passed by the} Assistanl Commissioner,^{Customsand Excise,A Division,Hyderabad,during the} pendency of this appeal.

¶15

Counsel for the Appellant(s):SRl.^{DIVYA DATLA}

¶16

Counsel for the Respondents:^{SWAROOP OORILLA(SR SC FOR CBITAND} CUSTOMS)

¶17

The Court made the following:^ORDER

¶18

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.TUKARAMJI

¶19

C.E.A.No.22 of 2Ol9

¶20

WDGMENT:(per Hon'ble Si Justice P.9AM KosHY)

¶21

Heard Sri Naga Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri Swaroop Ooriila, learncd Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent.

¶22

The instant appeal was admitted on 13.06.2019 on the following substantial question of law:-

¶23

"Wletter on the facts and in the ciro)mstances of the case, the Tribunal being the final fact ftnding authontA, erued tn deciding the dppeal uithout giuing an opportunitA to lhe appellant to put forth^{itscose inthe rightperspectiue and consequentlA} direding the appellant to paA the differentictl dutA amount to Rs.1,05,72,593/ -."

¶24

The challenge in the present appeal is to the order, dated 23.10.2018 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Regional Bench - H-vdcrabad (for short "the Tribunal"), whereby the appeal of thc appcllant has been rejected.

¶25

The solitary ground on r.r.hich thc prescnr :rppcal was admitted was on the contention o[ the apltcllar-rt that they r.l,cre

¶26

¶27

PSrr,J & JVTR,J C.E.A,No,22 of 2O19

¶28

not given fair and reasonable opportunity to contest the appeal before the Tribunal.

¶29

According to the appellant, it was a case where, the appeal was filed as early as in the year 2OO9 and the appellant was a-lso granted an interim relief by the Tribunal on 19.09.2009, whereby interim relief was granted on the condition to the appellant to deposit a sum of Rs.50,OO,O00/-. According to the appellant the said order was duly complied with. Thereafter the matter was taken up on a couple of occasions until 08.07.2014. However, thereafter there has not been any further hearing for a considerable long period of time. Subsequentty, a notice for hearing was sent to t[-rc zrppellant and also to the learned counsel appearing for the appellant on I l. 10.20lg intimating the date ofhearing on 23. t 0.20 I8.

¶30

The learned counsel lor the appetlant submits that the said notice, dated 1 I . I 0.20 I 8 u'as in fact served upon the learned counsel appearing lor the appellant before the Tribunal only on the date of hearing irs(rlf_ That too in the afternoon and in the process there could not be anr. representation made on behalf of the appellant bclbre the Tribunal. The Tribunal closed

¶31

¶32

..r.ii!:ir*"i?i;{

¶33

the matter on the same day and rejected the appeal after hearing the learned departmental representative appearing for the respondent. This according to the appellant is where the appellapt was deprived of a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing and it was in this context that the question of law was also framed while admitting the appeal.

¶34

From the perusal of the list of dates on which the appeal was listed before the Tribunal, it would give a clear indication that there was no date of hearing after O8.O7.2O 14 and as such the appellant was not aware of the date of hearing. Further, if we accept the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the notice issued on 11.1O.2018 was also scned upon the Iearned counsel only on the date of hearing i.e- , 23- 10.20 l8 cven then if the matter has been closed on the same da_1 , s'e arc of the considered opinion that the Tribunal appears to ha','e shou,n a Iittte bit of haste in closing the matter on the sarne d:1'.

¶35

The reason as to why we have reactrcd to the said conclusion is that admittedly for the past more than tour (4) -l'ears^{there was no date of hearingin the appeal. t'hc noticc}

¶36

¶37

PSK,J & A|:I:R,J C.E.A.No.22 oJ 2019

¶38

that was sent on 11.10.2018 seems^{to havebeen servedon the} appellant on 23.10.2018 on the^date of^{hearing. Even if there} was no representation on behalf of the appellant,^{since the} appeal itself has been taken up alter a^{gap of four years, the} Tribunal could have adjourned the^{matter to anotherdate} awaiting appearance and if still^{there had been no appearance} on the part of the appellant,^{the Tribunal couldhave proceeded} and decided the appeal on merits^{rather than closing the case} and deciding the appeal against^{the appellant on the hrst day of} hearing itself after a^gap of four⁽⁴⁾ 1ears.

¶39

In the factual backdrop,^{</sup> 'le are^{inclinedto answerthe} substantial question of law^{framedb1' this Court in affirmative} and hold that the impugned^{order,dated 23.10.2O18to the} aforesaid extent to be unsustainablc.^{It is ordered accordingly,} as a consequence, we set-asidc tllc^{salnc and remit the matter} back to the Tribunal with a^{drrct:tion that ltie appeal may be} decided on its own merits in accorclanc:c'^{s ith lel'r,' after granting} the appellant a due opportunin^{of hearing.}}

¶40

¶41

PSK,J & ]VTR,J C.E.A.No.2Z of²⁰¹⁹

¶42

Considering^{the fact that the appeal beforethe Tribunal is} one of the^{year 2O09, while remittingthe matter back to the} Tribunal, we are^{directingthe appellant to enter appearance} before the Tribunal^{on 2 I . I 1.2023. It is madeclear that there} shalt be no necessity^{of issuanceof any furthernotice by the} Tribunal to the appellant^{for their appearance' Further, the} Tribunal is directed to^{take up the appeal on prioritybasis and} conclude the same at^{the earliest. It is also madeclear that} this Court has^{not expressedany opinionon the merits of the} a ppeal.

¶43

1I. In view of the^{above discussion, this appealstands} allou,ed. There shall^{be no order as to costs}

¶44

Consequently, miscellaneous^{applications pendingif anr}

¶45

shall st:rnd closed.

¶46

SD/. K.SRINIVASA^RAO JOINT REGISTRAR

¶47

*>-,'SECTION^OFFICER

¶48

//TRUE^COPY//

¶49

To, 1 Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs and Savior Tax - Hyderabad l' ' Xil;;;silir eh*rn' La' stadium Road' Basheerbash' Hvderabad' Telanagana^{- 500004}

¶50

2 o;; Cc^{to SRIDIVYA DATLAAdvocate [oPUQ-} ^- ; o;; aa^{io snr swnnooPooRlLLA(sRsc FoRcBrr AND} cusTolvs)^Advocate [oPUC]

\ ).

HIGH COURT

DATED:O311112023

ORDER

CEA.No.22 of 2019

AT E
o
[\ 1\1<br>1t
lootr i
t D Esptii

¶58

ALLOWNG THE CEA WTHOUT COSTS

Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise

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. Shriram Chits Private Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - Exemptions Vs M/s. Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology

Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Hyderabad. Vs Sri Narender Kumar Goel

M/s. National Insurance Co. Ltd., Vs Smt. Swetha Kedia

M/s.New India Assurance Company Vs Byndla Jyothi

Narender Reddy Racharla Vs The Income Tax Officer