DEBANGSU BASAK, J. - (1.) The petitioner has assailed an order dated March 15, 2014 passed under Section 14AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereafter the 'said Act') on the ground that, the impugned order has been passed in breach of principles of natural justice and that the impugned order is unreasoned.
(2.) Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) : 2008 (226) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) [Sahara India (firm) v. Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another] and submitted that, since under Section 14AA of the said Act entails civil consequences, the authorities are obliged to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In the present case, the petitioner was not afforded any opportunity of hearing. Moreover, the impugned order is unreasoned. The impugned order does not specify any ground as to the formation of the opinion of the Commissioner that the petitioner has availed of duty credit or utilised Cenvat credit beyond the normal limits.
(3.) Learned Senior Advocate on behalf of the Department has submitted that the Department may be permitted to hear the petitioner after keeping the impugned order stayed.;