M/S. Sudarshan Products, Ganjam vs. Union Of INDIA

Petitioner no.2, proprietor of Petitioner no.1-Manufacturing and Trading unit of pan masala products, claimed to have discharged central excise duty since January 2008 to January 2011 and closed the unit with effect from 01.02.2011, which was duly noted by the Central Excise Authority.

Petitioner no.2, due to deterioration of his health, had to remain outside the State for a certain period for treatment. However, in his absence, in a clandestine manner, manufacturing activity was carried on in the brand name of Petitioner no.1, i.e. “M/s.Sudarshan Products”

The matter was carried by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Customs & Service Tax, Bhubaneswar-I against the M/s. Sudarshan Products, At/P.O.: Gangadahani, P.S.: Purushottampur, Ganjam (Excise Appeal No.731 of 2012) and the proprietor Sudarshan Nayak, At: Trinath Nagar, Berhampur (Excise Appeal No.732 of 2012) and Budhiman Nayak (At/P.O.: Gurunthi, P.S.: Purushottampur, District: Ganjam (Excise Appeal No.72018 of 2013). By a common order dated 12.09.2023, the learned CESTAT disposed of all these appeals and passed the following operative order: “xxx

Sri Devraj Sahu, learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that pursuant to said order of remand, Principal Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar appears to have passed an order on 09.02.2024. He submitted that though it was directed by the learned CESTAT for grant of opportunity to the petitioner, no notice/intimation of hearing was served on him as the petitioner has shifted his residential house and has no connection with the earlier place where manufacturing activity was carried on. No notice/intimation stated to have been issued could be served on him in connection with fresh proceeding by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the petitioner was deprived of appearing before the adjudicating authority to place relevant material. Hence, he prayed for setting aside the order dated 09.02.2024. 6. Sri Avinash Kedia, learned Junior Standing Counsel appeared for the Department and contended that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. Having not appeared before the authority concerned, though intimation was issued to him, he did not choose to furnish any material. He submitted that order dated 09.02.2024 passed by Principal Commissioner GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar cannot be faulted with.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Perused the record. It transpires during the argument and counter argument that the intimation of personal hearing returned with postal remark “addressee left, hence returned to sender”. Such fact also surfaced from the impugned order.

Learned Junior Standing Counsel did not dispute the fact that the notice/intimation for personal hearing claimed to have been issued to the petitioner, was never served on him. It is conceded that the said notice/intimation was sent to the old address and he admitted that after passing the Order-in-Original dated 09.02.2024 by the adjudicating authority, on a communication made through telephone for recovery of demanded amount, the petitioner sought for copy of the impugned order and such order was supplied to him on 08.04.2025. He fairly conceded that prior to passing of the Order-in-Original, though the intimation came back to the sender without service, no attempt was made to contact the petitioner over the telephone.

Under such premises, this Court is of the considered view that opportunity of hearing, as directed in the order dated 12.09.2023 of the learned CESTAT, was not afforded to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to entertain this writ petition and set aside the order dated 09.02.2024 passed by the Principal Commissioner, GST & Central Excise, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-6). However, this Court feels it expedient to direct as follows: I. The petitioner shall appear before the authority concerned on or before 26th August, 2025 along with documents/evidence which he considers necessary for the purpose of establishing his case with respect to liability and shall also produce such other documents as may be called for by the authority concerned. II. On such appearance, the authority concerned shall undertake verification forthwith or specify further date(s). After affording reasonable opportunity, the adjudicating authority shall decide the show cause notice as directed in the order of the learned CESTAT.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. All pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of.