2012 (9) TMI 344 - HC - Central Excise

Clarifications on the petitioner s representations - writ of Mandamus - Power of CBEC to issue clarification u/s 37B on demand with respect to levy of duties of excise on such goods - Held that - The relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted, as the petitioner has not been in a position to show that they have a right to demand the issuance of the clarifications, as prayed for in its vaan representations, dated 12.01.2012, 14.04.2012 and 25.04.2012, and that there is a concomitant obligation on the part of the respondent to issue such clarifications - Writ dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Interpretation of Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944 regarding the issuance of clarifications by the respondent.
- Analysis of Rule 31 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002 in relation to the authority to issue clarifications.
- Examination of the respondent's power to provide clarifications as per the petitioner's representations.
- Determination of the petitioner's right to demand clarifications and the respondent's obligation to issue them.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner sought a writ of Mandamus to compel the respondent to issue clarifications on representations dated 12.01.2012, 14.04.2012, and 25.04.2012 under Section 37-B of the Central Excise Act, 1944. However, Section 37-B empowers the Central Board of Excise and Customs to issue orders for uniformity in excisable goods classification or levy of excise duties, not individual clarifications.

2. The petitioner argued that clarifications could be issued under Rule 31 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. Nevertheless, Rule 31 allows the Board or Commissioners to provide instructions on incidental matters consistent with the Act and Rules, not specifically for individual clarifications as requested by the petitioner.

3. The respondent contended that they lacked the authority to issue the clarifications as requested by the petitioner. It was mentioned that some clarifications had already been provided on the issues raised in the representations. The Court noted the absence of evidence establishing the petitioner's right to demand clarifications and the corresponding obligation on the respondent to issue them.

4. After considering the arguments from both sides and reviewing the available records, the Court concluded that the relief sought in the writ petition could not be granted. The petitioner failed to demonstrate a legal basis for demanding the clarifications as requested in their representations. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's claim lacked merit and did not establish the respondent's obligation to provide the sought-after clarifications.

5. The Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and, therefore, dismissed it without imposing any costs. The connected miscellaneous petition was also dismissed in line with the decision on the main writ petition.