WAGHBAKRIWAL RAYONS Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have challenged an order dated 6.2.2014 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT for short) under which while remanding the proceedings back to the adjudicating authority, Tribunal imposed a condition of depositing sum of Rs. 50 lacs on the petitioners. The petitioners were served with show cause notice dated 14.12.2004 why excise duty with interest and penalty not be recovered. It is not in dispute that after service of show cause notice, adjudicating authority kept the proceedings in abeyance and revived the hearing only in the year 2012. In the meantime, the petitioners' factory had shutdown. Notices of hearing of the show cause notice, therefore, returned unserved. The adjudicating authority, therefore, proceeded ex parte and passed the final order confirming the duty demand with penalty and interest. This order the petitioners challenged before the Tribunal and requested for remand of the proceedings since the order in original was passed ex parte. On the date of hearing on 6.2.2014, in fact, the petitioners requested for adjournment. However, the Tribunal on the ground that twice the proceedings were earlier adjourned, refused to grant any further time and while remanding the proceedings to the adjudicating authority imposed the said condition of depositing sum of Rs. 50 lacs on the petitioners. Tribunal made following observations: - -

(2.) Counsel for the petitioners drew our attention to the decision of Division Bench of this Court in case of Avaya Global Connect Ltd. v/s. Union of India : [2013] 36 taxmann.com 9/ : 40 STT 495 to contend that though Tribunal has wide powers under Sec. 35C of the Central Excise Act, while remanding the proceedings on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice, condition of pre -deposit cannot be imposed. For the same purpose, reliance was also placed on the decision dated 20th August, 2015 made in Special Civil Application No. 15279 of 2014 in case of Waghbakriwala Rayons v/s. CCE.

(3.) Learned counsel, Shri R.J. Oza, for the Department on the other hand pointed out that even after service of the show cause notice, petitioners had not filed any reply. Notices were dispatched to the factory address given by the petitioners. Since 2004, petitioners are facing proceedings for recovery of unpaid excise duties for a sum of Rs. 4 crores (rounded off) with matching penalty and interest. Tribunal under Sec. 3 5C of the Central Excise Act has ample powers to impose suitable conditions.