1994 Supreme(Mad) 893
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJU
Metal Powder Company Limited - Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Madurai - Respondents
Writ Petition No. 14509 of 1992
Decided On : 31 October 1994
The principles of natural justice require that a party be given a fair and effective opportunity to be heard before an administrative decision is made that affects their rights.
Headnote:
CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1985 - CLASSIFICATION OF COMMODITY - ZINC DUST OR ZINC POWDER - SHOW CAUSE NOTICE - FINAL ORDER - QUASHING OF ORDER - VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DENIAL OF FAIR AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY - RESTORATION OF PROCEEDINGS - FRESH NOTICE OF HEARING - DECISION ON MERITS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of zinc dust, challenged the final order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai I Division, classifying the product manufactured by the petitioner as zinc powder assessable to duty under the Heading 7903.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and demanding differential duty for the period between January, 1992 and November, 1992. The petitioner also challenged the consequential order passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Thirumangalam Range, rejecting the request for a registration certificate for deleting the entry relating to the classification of the goods in question.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Assistant Collector had passed the final order without giving the petitioner a fair and effective opportunity to be heard, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The court also found that the Superintendent of Central Excise had passed the consequential order solely on the basis of the Assistant Collector's order, which was now being quashed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai I Division, had violated the principles of natural justice by passing the final order without giving the petitioner a fair and effective opportunity to be heard? 2. Whether the Superintendent of Central Excise, Thirumangalam Range, had erred in passing the consequential order solely on the basis of the Assistant Collector's order, which was now being quashed?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Assistant Collector had violated the principles of natural justice by passing the final order without giving the petitioner a fair and effective opportunity to be heard. The court also held that the Superintendent of Central Excise had erred in passing the consequential order solely on the basis of the Assistant Collector's order, which was now being quashed.
Final Decision: The court quashed the final order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai I Division, and the consequential order passed by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Thirumangalam Range. The court also directed the Assistant Collector to restore the proceedings, issue a fresh notice of hearing, and decide the matter on merits objectively and in accordance with law.
Even when the Writ Miscellaneous Petitions came up before this Court having regard to the nature of the relief sought for and the stage of the proceedings before the authorities below, I considered it appropriate to dispose of the main writ petitions themselves. Learned counsel on either side had no objection to the said course. Consequently, the said main writ petitions themselves are taken up for hearing.
2.These writ petitions relate to one and the same subject matter though raising overlapping issues and pertaining to different stage of the proceedings. Hence they are dealt with together.
3.Having regard to the stage of the proceedings before the authorities below, I consider it inappropriate to refer to the various claims on the merits of the main dispute itself. Suffice it to notice that the dispute centres round a conflicting claim as to whether the commodity in question is zinc dust or zinc powder for applying the proper rate of duty under the Central Excise Act. It appears that earlier a show cause notice has been issued for the period between 1-1-1992 and 30-6-1992 and this was the subject matter of W.P. No. 14509 of 1992. Though that writ petition was admitted, no interim order as such was granted. Subsequently, it appears, another notice came to be issued on 8-12-1992 calling upon the petitioner to show cause why the produce manufactured by the petitioner should not be treated as also powder under tariff sub-heading 7903.90 and not as zinc dust under sub-heading No. 7903.10 and why the differential rate should not be recovered from the petitioner for the period between 1-7-1992 and 30-11-1992. The petitioner was also called upon to show cause to the said proposals within thirty days from the date of receipt of the notice intimating also whether a personal hearing is also desired. Challenging the said proceedings, W.P. No. 28 of 1993 has been filed praying for a writ of certiorari to quash the said proceedings. While admitting that writ petition, this Court on 5-1-1993 in W.M.P. No. 53 of 1993 granted interim stay.
4.While matters stood thus, on 31-12-1992, the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai I Division, has passed final orders in the matter classifying the product manufactured by the petitioner as zinc powder assessable to duty under the Heading 7903.90 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and that the petitioner was not eligible to avail the benefit under Notification No. 184/88 dated 13-5-1988 in respect of their product with a consequential direction to file a classification list for the product manufactured by them as zinc powder as per Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. A demand was also ordered for a sum of Rs. 39, 92, 694.60 said to be the duty in respect of the goods manufactured and cleared during the period between January, 1992 and November, 1992. Aggrieved against the said proceedings of the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Madurai I Division, W.P. No. 1785 of 1993 has been filed seeking for a writ of certiorari to quash the same. Apart from the contentions raised on the merits, the plea on behalf of the petitioner in this writ petition is that in the light of what has been stated supra, there could be no scope for the Assistant Collector to have passed a final order in the matter.
5.Consequent upon the passing of the orders dated 31-12-1992 by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madurai I Division, the Superintendent of Central Excise, Thirumangalam Range appears to have issued a notice dated 6-1-1993 to return the L. 6 licence and Consolidated Registration Certificate No. 1/92 while rejecting the request for a registration certificate for deleting the entry relating to the classification of the goods in question. The Challenging the said communication, W.P. No. 1786 of 1993 has been filed for a writ ofcertiorarito quash the said proceedings. The result of this writ petition would inevitably depend upon the existence or otherwise of the order passed by the Ass