DEBANGSU BASAK,J. - (1.) A show-cause notice dated May 6, 2014 and an order in original dated September 28, 2018 are under challenge in the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned Additional Advocate General for the petitioner submits that, the impugned order suffers from breach of principles of natural justice. He draws the attention of the Court to the impugned show-cause notice, the reply submitted with regard thereto and the impugned order. He submits that, in the reply to the show-cause, the petitioner took several defences and cited various authorities, in support of the contentions raised. The impugned order, although notices the reply to the show-cause notice in some details but does not deal with the authorities cited. He relies upon 2008 (232) ELT 239 (Bom.) (Century Textile and Ind. Ltd. v. Union of India), 2016 (332) ELT 470 (Cal.) (Artee Overseas Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India), unreported decision of this Court dated July 5, 2017 delivered in W.P. 15127(W) of 2017 (Electrosteel Castings Limited and Anr. v. The Commissioner, Central Excise, Kolkata-III Commissionerate and Ors.) and submits that, non consideration of a binding authority amounts to breach of principles of natural justice. He relies upon 2009 (243) ELT 429 (Tri.-Kolkata) (Esab India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-VI) and submits that, the decision is by the jurisdictional Eastern Bench of CESTAT, which is binding upon the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority failed to apply the ratio laid down therein. Therefore, the impugned order stands vitiated by breach of principles of natural justice.
(3.) The respondents are represented.;