Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s Borochemie (India) Pvt. Ltd., was engaged in import and sale of goods like Borax Pentahydrate. It obtained Central Excise registration on 25 January 2002 for its premises at Plot No.25A, Besant Street, Santacruz (West), Mumbai. With effect from 7 June 2004, the petitioner shifted its office to new premises at 4044A, Dheeraj Heritage, 4th Floor, S.V. Road, Santacruz (West), Mumbai. By letter dated 8 July 2004, the petitioner informed the Superintendent of Central Excise of the change. Both premises fell within the same Central Excise jurisdiction. The petitioner continued to file Nil returns using the existing registration number, which were accepted by the department. The department also addressed communications to the petitioner at the new address. On 21 December 2010, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise issued a letter stating that the registration certificate stood cancelled as the petitioner had shifted premises without obtaining fresh registration. The petitioner challenged this cancellation by way of a writ petition. The court considered whether the cancellation without prior notice and opportunity of hearing was valid. The court held that the principles of natural justice require that before an adverse order is passed, the party must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The impugned order was set aside as violative of natural justice. The court directed the respondents to restore the registration and to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding the change of premises after giving a hearing. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Natural Justice - Audi Alteram Partem - Cancellation of Registration - The petitioner's Central Excise registration was cancelled without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The court held that the principles of natural justice require that before an order adverse to a party is passed, the party must be put on notice and given a reasonable opportunity to be heard. The impugned order was set aside as violative of natural justice. (Paras 5-7) B) Central Excise - Registration - Change of Premises - Requirement of Fresh Registration - The petitioner shifted its premises within the same jurisdiction and intimated the department. The court noted that the department had accepted returns and communicated with the petitioner at the new address. The court did not decide on the requirement of fresh registration but held that even if there was a violation, cancellation without notice was impermissible. (Paras 2-4, 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the cancellation of the petitioner's Central Excise registration certificate without prior notice and opportunity of hearing is valid in law.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned letter dated 21 December 2010, and directed the respondents to restore the registration certificate. The respondents were directed to consider the petitioner's explanation regarding the change of premises after giving an opportunity of hearing. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- audi alteram partem
- cancellation of registration without notice
- Central Excise registration
- change of premises
- requirement of fresh registration
