2006 (12) TMI 502 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Legality of the demand and penalty imposed u/s 11(a)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 171Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Alleged non-supply of documents to the petitioner.
3. Availability and exhaustion of alternative remedy.

Summary:

1. Legality of the Demand and Penalty:
The petitioner, a Public Limited Company, challenged the Annexure-L order dated 28.09.01 by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong, which confirmed a demand of Rs. 1,82,67,650.99 and imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- u/s 11(a)(2) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 171Q(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The demand was based on alleged evasion of Central Excise duty through misstatement, suppression of material facts, and misclassification of goods from 1981 to 24.02.84.

2. Alleged Non-Supply of Documents:
The petitioner argued that they were not provided with necessary documents to submit an effective reply to the show cause notice. Despite multiple requests and court orders, the petitioner claimed that not all documents were supplied. However, the respondents countered that all documents were provided, and the petitioner had ample opportunity to inspect them. The court found that the petitioner had indeed received the documents and that their plea of non-supply was misleading. The court noted that the petitioner failed to specify which documents were not supplied and how their absence prejudiced their defense.

3. Availability and Exhaustion of Alternative Remedy:
The court emphasized that the petitioner should have exhausted the alternative remedy of appealing to the Customs, Excise, and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal instead of invoking the writ jurisdiction. The court cited precedents, stating that the High Court should not interfere if an effective and efficacious alternative remedy is available. The court concluded that entertaining the writ petition would be an abuse of the court process and not in the interest of justice.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the impugned order dated 28.09.01, and ruled that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was directed to bear their own costs.