Ms Emmar Alloys Private Limited Through One Of Its Directors Namely Vikash Kumar Sinha And Anr vs. The State Of Jharkhand And Anr

Held

The Court held that the Order-in-Original dated November 24, 2016, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur, was indeed passed ex parte and in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Court noted that the petitioners had filed a reply to the show-cause notice on July 1, 2016, and the receipt of this reply was not denied by the respondent. The fact that the Order-in-Original stated no reply was filed indicated that the petitioners' reply was either overlooked or not considered. Consequently, the Court quashed and set aside the impugned order. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Jamshedpur, to be decided afresh after providing the petitioners with an adequate opportunity of being heard. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Commissioner on May 30, 2018, to facilitate the commencement of the hearing or the fixation of a suitable date, thereby avoiding further notices.

Facts

M/s Emmar Alloys Private Limited and its Director, Vikash Kumar Sinha (petitioners), filed a writ petition challenging an ex parte Order-in-Original dated November 24, 2016, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur (respondent No. 2). The petitioners contended that the order was passed in violation of natural justice as they were not given an opportunity to be heard. A show-cause notice was issued on March 18, 2016, to which the petitioners filed a reply on July 1, 2016. The respondent's counsel did not deny the receipt of this reply. However, the Order-in-Original stated that no reply was filed by the petitioners.

Key Issues

1. Whether the Order-in-Original dated November 24, 2016, passed by the Commissioner, Central Excise & Service Tax, Jamshedpur, is liable to be quashed and set aside for being passed ex parte and in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the non-consideration of the petitioners' reply to the show-cause notice? Petitioner's argument: The petitioners argued that the impugned order was passed ex parte and in violation of natural justice principles. They specifically highlighted that a reply to the show-cause notice was filed on July 1, 2016, which was received by the respondent on the same day, but this reply was either overlooked or not considered by the Commissioner, as evidenced by paragraph 12 of the Order-in-Original which stated no reply was filed. Revenue's argument: The judgment records no specific argument made by the respondents regarding the non-consideration of the reply.