M/S.The INDIA Cements LTD. vs. The Commissioner Of CGST And Central Excise

Held

The Court held that there was no delay on the part of the petitioner in furnishing the requested documents. The materials provided by the petitioner on 30.12.2020 were not taken into account before passing the impugned order. The Court found that the adjudicating authority had to revisit the issue by considering all particulars and materials furnished by the petitioner, including their earlier reply. The Court emphasized that interest of justice required a personal hearing to be afforded to the petitioner. The ratio decidendi is that an adjudicating authority must consider all relevant materials submitted by the assessee before passing an order, and failure to do so, especially when the assessee has acted promptly, violates principles of natural justice. The impugned order was quashed, and the matter was remitted to the first respondent for fresh adjudication in accordance with law, taking into account the observations made and affording a personal hearing.

Facts

The petitioner, M/s. The India Cements Limited, challenged an order dated 30.12.2020 passed by the Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Madurai. The dispute pertains to the period January 2008 to October 2012, concerning ISD credit and GTA credit. The adjudicating authority dropped proceedings for ISD credit but confirmed a demand related to GTA credits. The petitioner argued that the adjudicating authority passed the order without considering documents submitted on 30.12.2020, despite the Range Officer requesting them on 29.12.2020 and the petitioner furnishing them on the same day. The Range Officer had informed the adjudicating authority that the petitioner had not produced documents, even before receiving the petitioner's reply.

Key Issues

1. Whether the impugned order dated 30.12.2020, passed by the first respondent, is liable to be quashed for failing to consider the relevant materials furnished by the petitioner on 30.12.2020, thereby violating principles of natural justice? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness and consideration of evidence). Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the adjudicating authority passed the impugned order without considering the documents submitted on 30.12.2020. They highlighted that the Range Officer requested details on 29.12.2020, and the petitioner promptly submitted them on 30.12.2020. However, the Range Officer communicated to the adjudicating authority on the same day that the petitioner had not produced the documents, which was factually incorrect. This procedural lapse, they argued, vitiated the order. Revenue's arguments: The judgment records no specific arguments made by the respondents.