2008 (7) TMI 25 - SC - Central Excise

Adverse entry against appellant, Dt. Commissioner of Central Ex. & Customs representation against that adverse entry rejected by both Chief Commissioner & Central Govt. plea of petitioner is that Chief Commissioner & Central Govt. are bias held that Chief Commissioner and the Central Government are very high authorities and they have considered the representations of the appellant, so there is no bias - plea was not taken before Tribunal or HC so cannot be taken for the first time before us

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to adverse entry made to the appellant for the year 2000-01, Allegation of malafide adverse entry, Rejection of appellant's representation by Chief Commissioner and Central Government, Judicial review of administrative orders, Plea of bias based on entries before and after 2000, Failure to raise plea before Tribunal or High Court.

Analysis:
The appellant, a Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, challenged an adverse entry made to him for the year 2000-01. Despite alleging malafide intent behind the adverse entry, the Tribunal found no extraneous factor presented by the appellant to support this claim. The Chief Commissioner and the Central Government rejected the appellant's representations, leading to the Tribunal dismissing the appellant's Original Application (OA).

Subsequently, the appellant's writ petition before the High Court was also dismissed. The High Court noted that the Tribunal had already considered and rejected the plea of bias. It emphasized that senior officers had thoroughly examined the appellant's case and dismissed it. The High Court and the Supreme Court declined to interfere with these decisions, citing the limited scope of judicial review over administrative orders.

The appellant attempted to introduce a new plea before the Supreme Court, arguing that the isolated adverse entry in 2000 seemed biased compared to entries before and after that year. However, the Court refused to entertain this new argument, highlighting that the appellant failed to raise this issue before the Tribunal or the High Court. The Court emphasized that the appellant had the opportunity to present this plea earlier, but his failure to do so precluded its consideration at this stage.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, emphasizing the high authorities' fair consideration of the appellant's case. The Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it without costs.