SCA/20610/2007 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 20610 of 2007 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI ================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ================================================= JORD ENGINEER INDIA LTD & 2 - Petitioner(s) Versus UNION OF INDIA & 2 - Respondent(s) ================================================= Appearance : MR PARESH M DAVE for Petitioner(s) : 1 - 3. MR HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1 --3, ================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RAVI R.TRIPATHI Date : 03/03/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.S.SHAH) Rule. Mr Harin Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General waives service of Rule for the respondents. 2. What is challenged in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is the order dated 31.3.2007 / 20.4.2007 (Annexure-D) of the Additional Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, SCA/20610/2007 2/3 JUDGMENT Vadodara-II disallowing and ordering recovery of the modvat credit amounting to Rs.48,11,855/- with penalty of the same amount and also with interest and further penalty of Rs.5 lakhs each on the Deputy Manager and Vice-President of the petitioner-Company and on the authorized signatories of two other parties. 3. Ordinarily, the petitioners would have been required to file an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), but Mr Paresh Dave for the petitioners submitted that apart from the fact that the time- limit of 60 + 30 days = 90 days had already expired before the petitioners moved this Court, the impugned order was challenged merely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice in as much as the notice fixing the hearing on 28.2.2007, which was despatched by the concerned adjudicating authority only on 27.2.2007, reached the petitioners' consultant on the date of hearing i.e. 28.2.2007 and that the said notice reached the petitioner-Company on 2.3.2007. There was further controversy about noncompliance with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) by which the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority. 4. Having heard Mr Paresh Dave for the petitioners and Mr Harin Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General, we find considerable substance in the grievance that the petitioners were not given reasonable opportunity of hearing in as much as the notice fixing the hearing on 28.2.2007 was served upon the petitioners' consultant on 28.2.2007 itself and on the petitioner- Company on 2.3.2007 with the result that neither the petitioner nor its consultant had any time to prepare for the hearing and to appear before the adjudicating authority. On this short ground, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order dated 31.3.2007/20.4.2007 at Annexure-D to the petition. SCA/20610/2007 3/3 JUDGMENT 5. According to the petitioners, the annexures with the letter dated 26.2.2007 were not received along with the letter dated 26.2.2007. At least now the petitioner -Company has received the copies of the retraction letters along with a copy of the letter dated 26.2.2007. We further direct the adjudicating authority to give the petitioners copies of the RTO reports referred to in the adjudicating authority's order dated 31.3.2007 / 20.4.2007 within three weeks from today and thereafter the next hearing shall take place in the month of April 2008 for which sufficiently advance notice shall be given to the petitioners and their consultant. 6. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 31.3.2007 / 20.4.2007 (Annexure-D) is set aside with liberty to the adjudicating authority to proceed further in the matter in light of the observations made in this judgment. Rule is accordingly made absolute. (M.S. SHAH, J.) (RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.) zgs/-