- (1.) Mr. Saurabh Bagaria, learned Counsel, has argued this writ application with great force. His main submission was that there was a breach of the principles of natural justice by the Commissioner in passing his order dated 28th March, 2012. He referred me to para 3.1 of the order. He submitted that it was recorded there that personal hearing was given in relation to a show cause notice dated 16th November, 2010. That show cause notice was different from the subject matter of the application being considered by the Commissioner, which was for remission of excise duty. Therefore, the proceedings became vitiated. On that ground alone the order of the Commissioner should be set aside. If Mr. Bagaria's clients were given a hearing, they would be able to fully establish their claim for remission of duty. After hearing Mr. Saraf, learned Counsel for the revenue, this does not appear to be the case.
(2.) A fire allegedly broke out in the factory of the writ petitioners on 22nd November, 2009. According to them, a substantial quantity of stock in trade and finished goods, which were mainly cloths, textiles etc. were destroyed. They filed an application on 6th September, 2010 before the respondent authority for remission of excise duty payable on these goods. The foundation for this application was Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 which permitted the Commissioner to remit duty in case goods were destroyed by natural causes, accident etc.
(3.) On 16th November, 2010 a show cause notice was issued by the revenue demanding the excise duty. In respect of the application claiming remission of duty, personal hearing was afforded on 2nd February, 2012 in relation to this show cause notice. The impugned order was passed on 28th March, 2012.;