2007 (1) TMI 162 - HC - Central Excise

When writ petition was admitted after hearing both sides (which remained pending for 12 years), cannot he dismissed on ground that alternative remedy is available to petitioner

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and admissibility of the writ petition.
2. Relevance of subsequent criminal court acquittal on quasi-judicial proceedings.
3. Examination of evidence and procedural fairness by Adjudicating Authority.
4. Legal implications of conflicting judgments from different tribunals.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Admissibility of the Writ Petition:
The court acknowledged that typically, an appeal under Sections 35G/35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 would lie to the High Court. However, given that the writ petition was admitted in 2002 after hearing both parties and had been pending for 12 years, the court decided to hear the writ petition on merits rather than dismiss it on the ground of alternative remedy.

2. Relevance of Subsequent Criminal Court Acquittal on Quasi-Judicial Proceedings:
The petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision should be reconsidered in light of the subsequent acquittal by the Special Judicial Magistrate, Economic Offences (Revenue), Jaipur. The criminal court had found no case of clandestine removal of goods, acquitting the partners of the assessee firm on the same set of facts and evidence. The court emphasized that findings of criminal courts are relevant and cannot be ignored by quasi-judicial tribunals when based on the same facts and evidence.

3. Examination of Evidence and Procedural Fairness by Adjudicating Authority:
The petitioner contended that the Adjudicating Authority failed to provide an opportunity for cross-examination of key witnesses, including Mr. Kapil Gupta, whose confessional statement was retracted. The court noted that the Adjudicating Authority did not exercise its powers under Section 14 of the Act to summon witnesses or alleged purchasers, thereby questioning the procedural fairness of the demand and penalty imposed.

4. Legal Implications of Conflicting Judgments from Different Tribunals:
The court examined the legal principle that while quasi-judicial proceedings are independent, findings from competent criminal courts on the same facts and evidence should not be disregarded. Citing various judgments, including Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., the court highlighted that conflicting judgments from different tribunals on the same facts undermine the rule of law and fair play. The court concluded that when subsequent criminal court findings contradict quasi-judicial decisions, the matter should be remanded for reconsideration.

Conclusion:
The court decided to remand the case back to the Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) for fresh consideration in light of the subsequent acquittal by the criminal court. This decision aims to ensure that the petitioner is not subjected to conflicting findings from different tribunals, thus upholding the principles of justice and fair play. The writ petition was disposed of, and the CEGAT was directed to reconsider the appeal of the assessee afresh.