- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned letters dated 6. 4. 2004 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) and order dated 8. 4. 2004 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) so for as it relates to the suspension of the facility of issuance of CT-3/procurement Certificate to the petitioner. THE petitioner has also prayed for issuance of a direction to the respondents to restore the facility of CT- 3/procurement Certificate to the petitioner's unit. From the facts of the case it appears that the petitioner manufactures and exports metal-wares, glass- wares and imported wooden-wares. Since the petitioner earns foreign exchange for the Government by its export it has been granted full exemption of central excise duty for the import of raw materials, components, spares, consumables etc. The petitioner is also entitled to procure raw materials locally without payment of central excise duty. Obviously this exemption by the Central Government was granted because the petitioner was exporting his manufactured items and earning foreign exchange. It is alleged by the respondents in their counter affidavit that the petitioner misused this facility and was not exporting all his manufactured items but was diverting much of it to the domestic market. It is alleged in paragraph 29 and 31 of the counter affidavit that on as many as 10 occasions the petitioner was issued letters asking them to appear before the authority concerned but they did not appear. However, in para 11 of the rejoinder affidavit it is stated that on three occasions their representatives had appeared.
(3.) WE are not going into this disputed question of fact. There is no doubt that by issuing such notices the petitioners were given opportunity of hearing. Rules of justice cannot be placed in a straight jacket. They can not be construed in an over technical manner vide AIR 1985 S. C. 1416 (vide paras 97 and 101) Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel, J. T. 1994 (5) SC 280, The Maharashtra State Financial Corporation v. M/s Suvarna Board Mills & another, AIR 1973 SC 1260 Hira Nath Misra v. Rajendra Medical College, Ranchi. In JT 1994 (5) SC 280 a notice was issued by the Financial Corporation calling upon the respondent to pay the dues failing which possession will be taken. The Supreme Court held that no other show cause notice was required. In AIR 1976 SC 1686 H. C. Sarin v. Union of India, the Supreme Court quoted from a judgment of Lord Denning in Rex v. Secy. of State for the Home Department ex parte Mughal, (1973) 3 All 796 who observed: "the rules of natural justice must not be stretched too far. Only too often the people who have done wrong seek to invoke `the rules of natural justice' so as to avoid the consequences. " Hence the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not given a show cause notice stating in express terms that the petitioner should explain why his certificate should not be suspended/cancelled, does not appeal to us. The basic principle of natural justice is that there should be fairness. The opposite parties were certainly fair by issuing notices to the petitioner on as many as 10 occasions asking the petitioner to explain its version regarding the allegations of irregularities and breach of the conditions of the agreement. In our opinion this was sufficient compliance of natural justice.;