Ms Kota Dall Mill Through Its Authorized Signatory Ranjit Singh vs. Assistant Commissioner CGST And Cx

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Kota Dall Mill, manufactured and supplied food items under the Integrated Child Development Services Scheme. These items were intended to be exempted from excise duty under Exemption Notification No. 12/2012-Central Excise, provided a certificate from a State Government officer was submitted within five months of clearance, extendable by the jurisdictional commissioner. The petitioner supplied items manufactured in Rajasthan before establishing a plant in Bokaro in December 2014. Certificates were issued by the State Government after final payment of bills. A service tax audit identified a demand of Rs. 37,49,70,757/- for non-payment of Central Excise Duty on food items supplied from July 2014 to March 2016, citing non-submission of the required certificate within the prescribed period. A Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued by Respondent No. 3 on 24.07.2019, and an Order-in-Original was passed by Respondent No. 1 on 12.04.2021, demanding duty, interest, and penalty. The petitioner filed a writ application challenging the proceedings and the Order-in-Original.

Held

The Court held that the writ application is not maintainable on the ground of availability of an effective alternative statutory remedy. While acknowledging the petitioner's reliance on the Radha Krishan Industries judgment regarding exceptions to the alternate remedy rule (violation of natural justice, lack of jurisdiction, etc.), the Court found that none of these exceptions were met in the present case. The Court noted that the Order-in-Original clearly recorded that opportunities for personal hearing were provided to the petitioner on multiple dates (17.11.2020, 17.12.2020, and 08.01.2021), and the petitioner appeared on the last date. Therefore, the Court concluded that the principles of natural justice were duly followed. The Court also stated that it was not the petitioner's case that the Order-in-Original was passed without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ application, granting liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and to raise all grounds before the appellate authority, including substantial compliance with the exemption certificate submission.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ application is maintainable before the High Court, considering the availability of an alternative statutory remedy under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944, particularly in light of the judgment in Radha Krishan Industries v. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others (2021) 6 SCC 771? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner contended that the writ application is maintainable due to violations of the principles of natural justice, the proceedings being without jurisdiction, and the Order-in-Original being arbitrary and void-ab-initio. They relied on the exceptions to the rule of alternate remedy as laid down in Radha Krishan Industries, specifically citing violations of natural justice and lack of jurisdiction. The petitioner also argued that a letter denying an extension for submitting certificates was issued in violation of a circular requiring DIN quoting. Revenue's arguments: The respondents did not explicitly present arguments regarding the maintainability of the writ petition in the provided text. However, the Court's decision implies that the respondents' stance, or the Court's interpretation of the facts, led to the conclusion that the statutory remedy should be exhausted.