DCW LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NOTICE of motion has been ordered by Sivasubramaniam, J. on 8-9-1988. When the Writ Miscellaneous Petition came up for hearing, by consent of both parties, the main writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal, after admitting the writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner herein seeks a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records from the respondent of the impugned order in C.No. V/14G/15/14/82-CX. 3, dated 10-6-1988 and after quashing the same to direct the respondent to afford reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to make representations on merits.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General, appearing for the Department contends that the matter was fully heard on 10-6-1988 and the senior Counsel represented the petitioner. No question of giving written representation on the facts of this case arose, because the petitioner had already given the written representations even as early as 30-9-1986. It is submitted by the learned Advocate General that there is no necessity for filing any written representation or written arguments to decide the matter. THE learned Advocate General further contends that a writ petition is not the proper remedy at this stage, especially when the adjudication has been made, and that the petitioner has to approach the Tribunal primarily. With regards to the contention of violation of principles of natural justice, the learned Advocate General strenously argues that there is no violation of principles of natural justice on the facts of this case because fair and full opportunity was given to the petitioner and that the order was passed on 10-6-1988 because the Revenue was interested in disposing of the said petition since the matter was pending more than six years. THE learned Advocate General relies upon an unreported decision of a Division Bench of this court in W.A. No. 257 of 1988 (M/s. Z. Raja Reddi Factory, Gudiyathamv. THE Collector of Central Excise, Madras and Others') with regard to the scope of Section 35G of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and submits that the writ petition is not maintainable at this stage. He further contends that there is no necessity to go before another officer as no personal animosity or bias is alleged against the officer, who passed the impugned order.