VODAFONE CELLULAR LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner has come forward with the aforesaid prayer, challenging the order of the 2nd respondent. The only issue raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that they were not given opportunity of hearing before the final order dated 26-12-2014 was passed by the second respondent in terms of the provisions of Section 33A(1) and (2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. In other words, before passing an adjudication order, the Adjudicating Authority shall grant time to the licensee and adjourn the hearing for reasons to be recorded in writing, however, the party to such proceeding shall not be granted more than three times during the proceeding. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order is per se in violation of the principles of natural justice and the mandatory procedure contemplated under 33A(1) and (2) of the Act.

(2.) On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Pleader would contend that the petitioner has been given adequate opportunity to defend the proceedings initiated against him and therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned proceedings are in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the Act merely contemplates affording an opportunity to the assessee and it is not a mandatory condition to be followed by the Adjudicating Authority. Therefore, the proceedings of the second respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, does not call for any interference by this Court and he prayed for dismissing the writ petition.

(3.) I heard the counsel for both sides. Before dealing with the rival submissions made by the counsel for both sides, it is necessary to look into Section 33A(1) and (2) of the Act, which is extracted below: