Gujarat High Court
Viral Shah, Director Of M/S. Shah ... vs Union Of India on 23 June, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/3939/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3939 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5802 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5807 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5811 of 2025
With
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5832 of 2025
=============================================
VIRAL SHAH, DIRECTOR OF M/S. SHAH METACORP LTD.
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MR. H. G. DHARMADHIKARI WITH MR DHAVAL SHAH(2354) and
MR. BHALERAO for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
DEEPAK N KHANCHANDANI(7781) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
MR PRADIP D BHATE(1523) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
Appearance Special Civil Application Nos. 3939/2025 and
5802/2025:-
MR. SHASHVATA U. SHUKLA for the Respondents.
Appearance Special Civil Application Nos.5807/2025,
5811/2025 and 5832/2025:-
MS. HETAL G. PATEL for the Respondent(s) No.1 and 2.
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 23/06/2025
COMMON ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE SUNITA AGARWAL) Page 1 of 7 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:17:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3939/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined
1) All the writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 22.10.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 namely Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, all the above referred writ petitions have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2) Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
3) We may note, at the outset, that the challenge herein is to the order passed by respondent No.2 namely the Commissioner of CGST and Central Excise under Rule 15 (1) fo the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, which is appealable under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
4) The petitioners have approached this Court instead of availing the appellate statutory remedy with the only submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant that while by judgment and order dated 15.02.2023, this Court in a group of writ petitions, namely Special Civil Application No.2542 of 2021 has issued directions for grant of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, with the further direction to the adjudicating authority to decide the issue of cross- examination of the witnesses, which was prayed for by the petitioners, no such opportunity was granted.
5) The submission is that in compliance of the directions issued by this Court, the learned advocates appearing for the Page 2 of 7 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:17:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3939/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined parties have made submissions before the respondent No.2 that while remanding the matter back, personal hearing was required to be afforded and application dated 21.03.2023 submitted by the petitioners for cross-examination was to be considered.
6) Attention of this Court was invited to paragraph No.45 of the order impugned at page No.'196' of the paper-book to submit that the request was made by the learned advocate of M/s Gyscoal Alloys Ltd. for cross-examination vide letter dated 21.03.2023, wherein cross-examination of 35 persons, whose description can be found at page No. '199' of the paper-book was requested by the petitioner. However, the respondent No.2 has permitted cross-examination of only 19 persons, which cannot be said to be due compliance of the directions contained in the order dated 15.02.2023 of this Court.
7) It is, thus, vehemently argued that the directions contained in the order of this court have not been complied with in its true letter and spirit and, it is a case of denial of due opportunity of hearing in violation of the principles of natural justice. Resultantly, the bar of statutory alternative remedy would not come in the way of the petitioners.
8) Considering this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, we may note the observations made in the order itself at page No. '347' of the paper-book, which records the final written submissions filed by the advocate of M/s Gyscoal Alloys Ltd. after personal hearing held on 23.02.2024.
Page 3 of 7 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:17:08 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3939/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined The contents of the final written submission filed by the learned advocate after personal hearing held on 23.02.2024 have been extracted in the order of respondent No.2 from page No. '354' onwards.
9) The written submissions filed by the learned advocates on or after 23.02.2024 at page Nos. '354' to '356' are relevant to be extracted hereinunder:-
"17. During the course of adjudication, my client filed reply to Show Cause Notice vide letter dated 04.05.2020 along with the application for cross-examination of the deponents whose statements were recorded under Section 14 of Central Excise Act, 1944.
18. As per the direction of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court this Hon ble Authority pleased to allow the cross examination of the deponents and thereby the following persons were cross-examined during the course of adjudication, Sr. Name of person and designation Category No. 1 Shri. Jamnashankar Prabhulal Udavat, Employee of M/s. Gyscoal Excise Clerk of M/s Alloys 2 Shri. Prakashsingh Solanki, Plant in Employee M/s.
charge of M/s Gyscoal Alloys
3 Rajendra B Mewada, Authorised Person Employee of Co-Noticee
of Tvisha Tradelinks, Superfine Trade M/s. Tvisha Tradlinks, 86 Solution, Magna Vision and Consultancy LLP 86 4 Dinesh Laxminarayan Jain, Proprietor of Local non duty paid scrap M/s Mahaveer trader 5 Shri. Nileshbhai Trivedi of Metal Trader, Local non duty paid scrap Ahmed (Broker) trader 6 Shri. Dinesh Shah of M/s. Vrashti Metals, Local non duty paid scrap Bhayander trader 7 Shri. Satyanarayan Garg Local non duty paid scrap Bhayander Mumbai trader 8 Shri. Deepak Shah Local non duty paid Page 4 of 7 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:17:08 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3939/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined 9 Shri. Upendrabhai Sukhadia Local non duty paid scrap Supervisor of M/s. Sagar trader 10 Shri. Naresh Seth Director of M/s. Sheth Broker and supplier of Metals 11 Shri. Anant Trivedi Director of M/s Supplier of Cenvatable Mercury Alloys goods to 12 Shri. Shankar Singh Shekhawat of M/s Supplier of Cenvatable Ratnesh Metals goods to 13 Shri. Parixit A. Patel, Director of M/s. Supplier of Cenvatable Nami Steels Pvt Ltd goods to 14 Shri. Anil Panchal Director of M/s. Rushil Supplier of Cenvatable Agrotech Nildhara Ltd goods to 15 Shri. Dinesh Shah Director of M/s. Asian Supplier of Cenvatable Stainless Pvt Ltd goods to 16 Shri. Kanhaiyalal Sharma Owner of M/s. Transporter of the goods Vishnu Transport from Supplier 17 Shri. Rameshchandra Sharma Proprietor Transporter of the goods of M/s. Neelkanth from Supplier 18 Suresh Kumar Raval Owner of Deepark Transporter of the goods Roadways from the Supplier 19 Shri. Mohan Lal Bishnoi of M/s. Mohan Transporter of the goods Transports from the Supplier 19 The gist of outcome of said cross-examination dated 18.09.2023 along with the record of cross-examination is submitted separately before this Hon'ble Authority vide email dated 18.09.2023. (The copies of said gist of outcome of cross-examination along with record of cross-examination are annexed herewith).
20. In view of the aforesaid, outcome of cross examination it is categorically established that my client has received the virgin goods under cenvatable invoice considering the deposition of the suppliers and transporters in the cross examination.
21. My client has also established the receipt of bazar scrap which is a technical necessity for the production of its final product SS Ingots."Page 5 of 7 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:17:08 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3939/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined
10) A perusal thereof indicates that no dispute had been raised after closing the proceedings with regard to the number of witnesses permitted to be cross-examined by the petitioner as per the application moved on 21.03.2023. The only issue sought to be raised before us is about not providing complete opportunity of hearing by permitting cross- examination of 35 witnesses as originally prayed for.
11) The learned counsel for the petitioners is not in a position to place anything beyond what has been transcribed in the order in paragraph No. '45' at page No. '196' onwards, wherein it is noted that personal hearing was granted to all sixteen (16) noticees on 09.03.2023. The advocate of M/s Glycol Alloys submitted application for cross-examination vide letter dated 21.03.2023. The cross-examination of 35 persons (whose names were mentioned at page Nos. '199' to '201' was requested by them.
12) We, therefore, do not find any substance in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners about denial of opportunity.
13) It is further pertinent to note that there is no categorical observation in the order of this Court dated 15.02.2023 as to how many witnesses were permitted to be cross-examined by the petitioner, rather the issue of cross-examination was left to the decision of the competent authority.
Page 6 of 7 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:17:08 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/3939/2025 ORDER DATED: 23/06/2025 undefined
14) For the aforesaid, we do not find it a fit case for invoking our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to exercise the power of judicial review, in view of the availability of statutory alternative remedy, which is effective in all respects. With the above, the present set of writ petitions stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ ) (D.N.RAY,J) SAHIL S. RANGER Page 7 of 7 Uploaded by MR. SAHIL SAMIULLA RANGER(HC01898) on Mon Jun 30 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jun 30 21:17:08 IST 2025