The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principles of natural justice, including the grant of adequate opportunities for hearing and cross-examination as mandated by the relevant legal provisions and circular.

ORDER :

SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. The petitioners are before this Court challenging the ex-parte Order-in-Original dated 12.10.2020 passed by the Commissioner Central GST and Central Excise, Gandhinagar Commissionerate, Ahmedabad allegedly in gross violation of principles of natural justice without hearing the petitioner or its authorized representative.

2. The brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows:

2.1 The petitioner M/s Rajputana Stainless Limited, is a company incorporated under Companies Act. M/s Suraj Limited, for manufacture their final goods i.e. SS pipes, was purchasing their raw material from the petitioner company and the same are supplied by the petitioner under the cover of central excise invoices on payment of central excise duty. In the process of manufacturing, SS pipes, SS scrap is generated. The same is supplied by M/s Suraj Limited to the petitioner under the cover of central excises invoices on payment of duty.

2.2 It is the say of the petitioner that officers of the preventive wing of Central Excise Department carried out the search in the premises of M/s Suraj Limited and withdrew their record under the panchanama. The suspicion on the part of the preventive team is that the petitioner only issued the central excise invoices without supply of goods. Therefore, M/s Suraj Limited has availed Cenvat Credit of excise duty without receipt of goods mentioned in the invoice and the allegations against the petitioner had been that it abetted with Suraj limited in availing Cenvat Credit based on the invoices issued by the petitioner without receipt of goods.

2.3 It is the say of the petitioner that no investigation at its premise had taken place. However, on the basis of the statements recorded under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and the ledger maintained by the Suraj Limited, the department issued the show cause notice on 17.12.2018 proposing to recover Cenvat Credit amounting to Rs.3.97 crores (rounded off) from Suraj Limited on the allegation that they availed cenvat of excise duty without receipt of quantity of inputs and proposing penalty under Rule 26(2) of the Central Excise Rules on the petitioner for abetment.

2.4 It is further averred that on 19.7.2019, the respondent no.2 issued a letter to the petitioner directing to file reply to the show cause notice to which the petitioner, on 25.7.2019, replied that they had not received any show cause notice and thereby requested to provide a copy of the same along with the relied upon documents.

2.5 A copy of show cause notice of 17.2.2018 had been provided by the respondent no.2 on 2.8.2019.

2.6 On 23.3.2020, the Government of India announced the nationwide lockdown on account of spread of Covid-19 pandemic and which mandated the citizens to stay at home and resulted into complete lockdown.

2.7 The department had fixed the personal hearing on 13.4.2020. According to the petitioner, it was impractical to have an access to the office of the respondent to attend the hearing. The personal hearing, since was scheduled on 3.4.2020, the petitioner could not attend it.

2.8 The respondent no.2 again, on 21.9.2020, directed the petitioner to file reply to the show cause notice on or before 23.9.2020. Learned advocate for the petitioner, on 22.9.2020, had filed reply to the show cause notice dated 17.2.2018 and rebutted the allegations.

2.9 The persons whose statement had been recorded and relied upon in the show cause notice were needed to be examined under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act for placing reliance on the statements and cross-examination also was sought for by the petitioner by separate application.

2.10 The original adjudicating authority, after having received the reply, had not referred to the reply in the order-in-original nor it granted examination or cross-examination of the persons whose statements had been recorded and relied upon and yet those statements have been relied upon, hence this petition seeking intervention of the Court.

2.11 Acco