2011 (8) TMI 1150 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the adjudicating authority in deciding facets urged by petitioner, exercise of power of judicial review, conflicting positions on whether activities amount to manufacture, examination of factual matrix, territorial jurisdiction, relevance of previous judgments.

Jurisdiction of Adjudicating Authority:
The petitioner sought a review of the order claiming that the adjudicating authority lacked jurisdiction to decide the issues raised and should have lancetted the notice to show cause instead of relegateing the petitioner. The respondent, however, argued that the Court had appropriately directed the matter to the adjudicating authority. The Court noted conflicting positions on whether the activities amounted to manufacture under the Central Excise Act, emphasizing that such questions require detailed examination and cannot be decided in a writ petition. The Court held that the adjudicating authority was entitled to examine whether the activities amounted to manufacture or not, as conferred by the Act.

Exercise of Judicial Review:
The petitioner contended that since disputed questions of facts were not involved, the Court should have exercised the power of judicial review and quashed the proceedings entirely. However, the respondent argued that the Court had adequately dealt with the aspects and directed the matter to the adjudicating authority for further examination. The Court emphasized that the nature of the activity undertaken by the petitioner needed detailed consideration and could not be decided ex facie.

Conflicting Positions on Manufacture:
The case revolved around whether the conversion of base vehicles into ambulances amounted to manufacture and attracted central excise duty. The petitioner argued that the activity was a service and hence not subject to excise duty, while the respondent classified the vehicles differently under the Central Excise Act. The Court acknowledged the conflicting positions and highlighted the need for a detailed examination of the factual matrix to determine the nature of the activity undertaken by the petitioner.

Territorial Jurisdiction:
The Court also addressed the issue of territorial jurisdiction, considering the location of search operations and the factory premises. The petitioner claimed jurisdiction based on having an office in Delhi, while the respondent emphasized the operations in Faridabad. The Court noted the involvement of different authorities and refrained from examining the issue in detail due to the pending writ petition since 2010, leaving room for the respondents to raise jurisdictional issues in the future.

Relevance of Previous Judgments:
In its analysis, the Court referred to various previous judgments such as Whirpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Union of India v. Hindalco Industries, and others to support its decision to direct the matter to the adjudicating authority for further examination. The Court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case or the petitioner's stance, leaving the adjudicating authority to decide on the issues raised.

Conclusion:
After considering the submissions and analysis, the Court declined to review the earlier order, rejecting the application for review. The Court emphasized that no opinion had been expressed on the merits of the case and granted the petitioner liberty to file an appropriate application before the adjudicating authority for relevant documents.