2015 (8) TMI 1175 - HC - Central Excise

Demand of duty, interest and penalty - Condonation of delay - Tribunal as well as Supreme Court declined to condone the delay - Held that - The challenge having failed right up to the Hon ble Supreme Court because the proceedings were belated - Mr. Motwani s, arguments overlooked the fact that an order which is erroneous, cannot be claimed to be a nullity. The difference between these two concepts have been noted long back. We cannot rely on the Madras High Court s order/judgment in the case of Beauty Dyers (2001 (12) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS) and now set at naught a complete adjudication. We do not see any merit in the writ petition. - Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge against recovery notice based on jurisdiction and validity of show cause notice.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a recovery notice demanding outstanding duty, interest, and penalty issued by the Range Superintendent. The petitioner's appeal against the original order was dismissed by the Tribunal due to being time-barred. Subsequently, the petitioner's writ petition in the High Court was also dismissed. The petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court, which was also dismissed. The petitioner argued that the show cause notice was without jurisdiction as the Rule it was based on had been removed from the statute book without a saving clause. The petitioner also cited a Madras High Court decision declaring the Rule ultra vires. However, the Court held that since the original order had been challenged and upheld up to the Supreme Court due to belated proceedings, the petitioner could not resist the demand based on jurisdictional grounds. The Court emphasized that an erroneous order does not render it a nullity, distinguishing between the two concepts. The Court rejected the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner cannot avoid the demand.