Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J
Net Avenue Technologies Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate – Respondent
Writ Petition | N/A

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. N Murali
For the Respondents: Mr. B. Deenadayalan Senior Standing Counsel

Failure to initiate the adjudication process mandates action as per the revision order under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act.

Headnote:The statute under consideration is Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which directs the remittance of matters back to the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner, aggrieved by an adverse order and subsequent dismissals of appeals, sought a Writ of Mandamus to initiate adjudication as per a revision order. The Court found merit in the petition due to the lack of response from the respondents and directed them to act upon the revision order. The central issue revolves around the non-initiation of the adjudication process, and the Court's ratio decidendi focuses on the necessity of a timely response from the authorities in accordance with procedural regulations. The Court emphasized compliance with the principles of natural justice. Ultimately, the decision mandates that the second respondent pass appropriate orders based on the revision order within six months from receipt.

Table of Content
1. notice of representation and consent. (Para 1 , 2)
2. writ of mandamus for timely adjudication. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)

ORDER

Mr.S.M.Deenadayalan, learned Senior Standing Counsel takes notice for the Respondents.

2. This Writ Petition is being disposed of at the stage of admission itself with the consent of the learned counsel for the Petitioner and the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Respondents.

3. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for a Writ of Mandamus to direct the 2^nd respondent to initiate adjudication process within the specified time as per the revision order dated 17.09.2021 passed in F.195/97-104/SZ/2018-RA/5251 F.No. 196/12-14/SZ/2019-RA/5297 by the Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India, Mumbai.

4. It is noticed that the petitioner had earlier suffered an adverse order in Order-in-Original No. 156-163/2017(R) dated 06.12.2017 in the hands of the Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise/2^nd respondent.

5. Aggrieved by the said order dated 06.12.2017, the petitioner had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority in Appeal No. 24-31/2018 (CTA-II/CS) on 05.02.2018. The Appellate Commissioner by an Order-in- Appeal No. 170, 171 and 172/2018(CTA-II) dated 16.03.2018 dismissed the said appeal preferred by the petitioner against the aforesaid Order-in-Ooriginal.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Appellate order, the petitioner had filed further revision under Sec.35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944, which is culminated in the order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India under Sec.35EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and consequently, the case is remitted back to the 2^nd respondent.

7. The petitioner had given several representations to the respondents on

24.03.2025 and 08.09.2025, however, it has not evoked any response. In such circumstances, this Court is inclined to direct the 2^nd respondent to pass appropriate order in terms of Revision Order dated 17.09.2021 passed by the Principal Commissioner RA and Ex-officio Additional Secretary to the Government of India under Section 35 EE of the Central Excise Act, 1944 preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

8. This Writ Petition stands disposed of with the above observation. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 20589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASC. SARAVANAN, JNet Avenue Technologies Limited – AppellantVersusThe Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate – RespondentWrit Petition | N/A

Failure to initiate the adjudication process mandates action as per the revision order under Section 35EE of the Central Excise Act.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C. SARAVANAN, J
Net Avenue Technologies Limited – Appellant
Versus
The Assistant Commissioner of GST and Central Excise, Chennai North Commissionerate – Respondent
Writ Petition | N/A