M/S Angel Baby Products Private Limited vs. Union Of INDIA And 3 Others

Held

The Court held that the writ petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy of appeal before the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Court dismissed the writ petition on this ground. However, the Court granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the CESTAT within two weeks from the date of the order. The CESTAT was directed to consider the petitioner's application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act sympathetically. If the delay is condoned, the pre-deposit of 7.5% would be subject to a circular dated 05.07.2018 issued by the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of CESTAT, New Delhi. No decision was made on the merits of the case.

Facts

M/s Angel Baby Products Private Limited (petitioner) filed a writ petition challenging a show cause notice dated 26.10.2016 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Central GST Division-II, Noida, an order dated 15.06.2017, and an order dated 28.09.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Tax Commissionerate, NOIDA. The petitioner contended that service tax amounting to Rs.93,04,186/- was imposed due to alleged failure to pay revenue charges on foreign traveller agent, goods transporter agency, and rent-a-cab services, which the petitioner claimed were deposited on 20.05.2014. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was issued after a delay of two and a half years. The adjudicating authority imposed a penalty of Rs.5,65,026/-. The petitioner's appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) was dismissed, despite depositing 7.5% of the disputed amount as pre-deposit. The petitioner did not approach the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative statutory remedy of appeal is available under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994? Petitioner's contention: The petitioner sought to quash the orders passed by the adjudicating authority and the Commissioner (Appeals) through a writ petition, implying a challenge to the legality and procedural fairness of the proceedings, particularly the delay in issuing the show cause notice and the imposition of penalty. Respondent's contention: The respondent argued that the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is appealable before the Central Excise Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) under Section 86 of the Finance Act, 1994, and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.