RATHI SPECIAL STEELS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition seeks to challenge the audit objection dated 8.11.2013, show cause notice dated 1.5.2015 and the order-in-original dated 21.6.2016. Further prayer in the writ petition is that the direction be issued to the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short-'the Tribunal') to waive the requirement of 7.5% pre-deposit under Section 35F as amended because the lis in the present case commenced prior to the aforesaid amendment. The constitutional validity of Section 35F has also been challenged on the ground that it is ultra vires to the Constitution of India as it imposes a mandatory condition of pre-deposit 7.5%, whereas in the earlier unamended provision, the Tribunal had a discretion to waive the pre-deposit.

(2.) Shri R.D. Rastogi, learned Additional Advocate General, at the outset, has submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 35F has already been upheld by the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi in Sri Satya Nand Jha vs. UOI in IA No.1608/2016 with WP(T) No.4858 of 2015 by judgement dated 5.7.2016. In SLP(C) No.31643/2016 filed against the aforesaid judgement, having been decided vide order dated 7.11.2016, the Supreme Court has upheld the same.

(3.) Shri Sameer Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the show cause notice dated 1.5.2015, the order in original was passed by the respondents relying on the norms fixed by the Steel Authority of India. Aside of the fact that the aforesaid norms cannot be applied to the petitioner, copy of such norms and other material, which the respondents relied, were not supplied to the petitioners despite demand. Reference is made to the number of applications, which the petitioner submitted and also the application, he made under Right to Information Act demanding copies thereof. It is argued that only part of some of those documents have been supplied to the petitioner and that too subsequent to passing of the order-in-original. Therefore, the order in original has apparently been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. In such like situation, alternate remedy of appeal may not be an impediment for this Court to entertain the writ petition and annul the order impugned.