M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) BY this writ application, the petitioner seeks appropriate order directing the respondents to issue copies of the Orders No. 133/RAN/C.Ex/Appeal/03 dated 22.10.2003 and No. 135/RAN/C.E/Appeal/03 dated 22.10.2003 on the ground that the petitioner has not been served with copies of the aforesaid orders till date and, further for quashing the summons as contained in letter No. 76 dated 22.2.2008 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range -I, Dhanbad under the provisions of Section 14 of Central Excise Act whereby the authority has started inquiry on account of nonpayment of Government arrears.
(2.) THE petitioner's case is that during the years 1996 -97 and 1999, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice by the Central Excise Department and the petitioner said to have informed the authority that the plant of the petitioner is closed down permanently since 12.10.1998 and in the said letter the petitioner gave the new correspondence address. However, the Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Dhanbad passed order on 16.7.1999 and 08.6.1999 and a demand of Rs. 68,884/ - and 1,23,834/ - respectively were raised. Petitioner's further case is that aggrieved by the said orders, two separate statutory appeals were filed before the appellate authority, Patna i.e. the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs, Patna. It is alleged that petitioner was never served any notice of hearing of the appeals, but in the year 2005, a letter dated 20.9.2005 was issued from the Office of Superintendent, Central Excise, Range -I, Dhanbad mentioning the duty and penalty payable by the petitioner. In response to the said letter, the petitioner vide letter dated 22.12.2005 requested the authority to forward the copes of two orders dated said to have been passed against the petitioner at Ranchi stating specifically that the petitioner has no knowledge about the said orders. Surprisingly, the petitioner said to have served with second letter dated 27.1.2006 asking the petitioner to deposit all Government dues along with interest without giving reply to the request of the petitioner for supplying copies of the aforesaid orders. The case of the respondents is that against the order dated 16.7.1998 passed in Order -in -Original No. 32/Deputy Commissioner/99 dated 16.7.1999, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 15.10.1999, but failed to comply the provisions of pre -deposit as required under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act. Similarly, against the order passed in Order -in -Original No. 24/Deputy Commissioner/99 dated 08.6.1999, the petitioner preferred another appeal on 15.10.1999, but failed to comply the provision of pre -deposit as required under Section 35F of the Act. Consequently, the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground of non -compliance of the aforesaid provisions, rejected the appeals and communicated the orders passed by him to the Adjudicating Authority i.e. the Commissioner of Central Excise and the petitioner -appellant. The respondents' further case is that there is no record of closure of unit or any change of address by the petitioner in the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) which ought to have been communicated to the office of Commissioner (Appeals). It is stated that due to bifurcation of jurisdiction, these cases were transferred to the Commissioner (Appeals), Central Excise and Service Tax, Ranchi and the case was decided accordingly. Neither the petitioner, nor his representative availed the opportunity of personal hearing. On 20.2.2001, the Advocate of the petitioner approached the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) and submitted an application for extension of time for personal hearing. Even at that time also, the petitioner did not furnish the changed address. It is contended that although the petitioner preferred appeals in both cases, but did not pursue the same. They even failed to get any stay order from the Office of the Commissioner (Appeals). The non -service of the order in appeal to the petitioner is denied by the respondents.
(3.) WE have heard Mr. M.S. Mittal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and, Mr. Mokhtar Khan, learned Asst. Solicitor General of India.;