Page 166 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

556 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372

11. He said that in this appeal, he was not asking the Court to go into
any question with regard to the rate of duty or classification of goods.
12. The only grounds were the breach of the principles of natural jus-
tice and the error on the part of the Tribunal to consider the question of limita-
tion.
13. He argued that the Tribunal had advanced no reason in support of
its order and failure to provide reasons also amounts to breach of the principles
of natural justice. He relied on the following cases to support his submission :
(i) Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department v. Shukla and
Brothers - (2010) 4 SCC 785 = 2010 (254) E.L.T. 6 (S.C.) = 2011 (22)
S.T.R. 105 (S.C.).
(ii) Annapurna Plastic Products Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise -
2019 (367) E.L.T. 220 (All.).
(iii) Commissioner of CGST & Central Excise, Mumbai v. Development Credit
Bank Ltd. - 2019 (365) E.L.T. 252 (Bom.).
(iv) Padmavati Tubes v. Commissioner of Central Excise & S.T., Vapi, 2017
(351) E.L.T. 38 (Guj.)
(v) Chamunda Synprocess (I) Pvt. Ltd. v. Jt. Commr. C. Ex. Commissioner-
ate, Jaipur-II, 2019 (365) E.L.T. 12 (Raj.).
14. He argued that the demand was barred by the laws of limitation. It
was for the period as stated by us i.e. from September, 2001 till May, 2005 for
which the show cause notice was issued on 27th March, 2007. The same dispute
arose between the parties earlier as apparent from demand notice dated 17th
September, 2004 referred to in paragraph 6.1 of the show cause notice dated 27th
March, 2007 in this case. Hence, the respondent Revenue was aware of the exact
facts of the case. There was no question of any suppression.
15. For that reason, the impugned demand of the appellant raised after
one year was beyond the period of limitation. The Revenue could not invoke the
longer period of limitation of five years, which was available only in the case of,
inter alia, suppression of material facts by the assessee.
16. Mr. Das submitted that he was confining the appeal to these
grounds.
17. The points of law concerning the breach of the principles of natural
justice, are an important element of administrative law. It is to a great extent pro-
cedural in nature. If a proper procedure is not followed, the proceeding and the
impugned order become vulnerable for breach of the principles of natural justice
and are liable to be set aside.
18. On going through the impugned order of the Tribunal, we find that
no proper reasons have been given in support of its finding. It has also not taken
into account, the certificate dated 4th December, 2018 of the Metro Railway certi-
fying the nature of service rendered by the appellant.
19. Secondly, we do not find that the question of limitation has been
gone into by the Tribunal in its proper perspective. The question of limitation is a
mixed question of law and fact. The appellant has pleaded that the respondents
had knowledge of the transactions relying on their earlier show cause notice dat-
ed 17th September, 2004 on the self-same issue, relied upon in the subject show
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  166