SUBRATA TALUKDAR,J. - (1.) Under challenge in this writ petition is the order under Section 14AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (for short the 1944 Act) as issued qua the petitioner by the Commissioner, Central Excise Kolkata-II Commissionerate / the Respondent No.1 to the petition. By the order impugned dated the 6th of February, 2017, the respondent No.1 (for short, only the order or, the said order), after quoting Section 14AA (supra) opined as follows:- "I am also inclined to go with observation of the Hon'ble High Court, Calcutta and I do believe that as per the available records, there were huge over utilization of credit by the notice in the later year than in the previous year and accordingly pass the following order. It is to mention here that after reorganization of Commissionerates, Central Excise documents in respect of the assesses working under the jurisdiction of Kol - II Commissionerate is audited by Audit -I Commissionerate on and from 15.10.2015. ORDER I, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred upon me under Section 14AA of the Central Excise Act, 1944 order for "Special Audit" of the Assessee for the period 2000-01, 2001- 02, 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06 (upto Oct'06). I also find that since this is a case of Special Audit, the matter may be dealt with by the Commissioner, Audit-I, Central Excise, Kolkata and hence I direct the case may be transferred to that Commissionerate to initiate further action at their end as stated above."
(2.) The short point argued by Mr. Raghavan, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner/assessee company is that the order does not provide reasons enough to support the formation of belief by the respondent No.1 that the utilisation/availing of the credit duty by the petitioner/assessee company falls under any of the conditions stipulated by Section 14AA(1)(a) and (b) thereof. It is submitted that the respondent No.1 acted in irregular exercise of jurisdiction conferred on him under Section 14AA(1) (supra) by mechanically referring the assessment to a special audit under the respondent No.2/the Commissionerate of Audit-I without applying his mind to the detailed written submissions filed by the petitioner before the respondent No.1.
(3.) This Court is taken by Ld. Counsel for the petitioner to the order dated 6th December, 2016 passed by a Hon'ble Single Bench in WP 2269 of 2005. The Hon'ble Single Bench was pleased to, inter alia, hold that the revenue respondents/excise department are required to operate under two obligations, viz. to pass a reasoned order and, to discharge the principles of natural justice while exercising powers under Section 14AA (supra).;