2018 (10) TMI 470 - HC - Central Excise

Abeyance with the SCN - request is made on the ground that in the petitioner s own case an identical issue relating valuation of job work is pending before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chennai. Held that - The prayer in this petition is rather unusual. There is no averment in the petition to the effect that an application was made to Commissioner of CGST for adjourning the adjudication of the show-cause notice dated 10th October, 2017 and the result of such an application. Therefore, there has been no demand for justice from the Authority under the Act, before seeking a mandatory direction against them. It is entirely for the Commissioner who has to adjudicate upon the show-cause notice dated 10th October, 2017 to decide whether or not to adjourn the adjudication of the show-cause notice till the decision is rendered in what the petitioner states is a similar / identical issue pending before the Tribunal at Chennai to that raised in the show-cause notice. This discretion has to be exercised by the adjudicating Authority taking into account all the facts which arise before him for adjudication in the show-cause notice and in the interest of over all justice. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Petition seeking direction to keep in abeyance a show-cause notice under the Central Excise Act, 1944.
2. Lack of averment regarding application for adjourning adjudication.
3. Commissioner's discretion to adjourn adjudication based on pending issue before the Tribunal.
4. Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in adjudication proceedings.

Analysis:

The judgment by the High Court of Bombay pertains to a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, requesting a direction to the Commissioner of CGST, Pune to hold in abeyance a show-cause notice issued under the Central Excise Act, 1944. The petitioner cited a similar issue pending before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal at Chennai as grounds for the request.

The High Court noted that the petition lacked an averment regarding any application made to the Commissioner of CGST for adjourning the adjudication of the show-cause notice and the outcome of such application. The court emphasized the importance of seeking justice from the relevant authority before resorting to a mandatory direction. The discretion to adjourn the adjudication in light of a pending issue before the Tribunal lies with the Commissioner, who must consider all relevant facts for the interest of overall justice.

The judgment highlighted that the High Court should not interfere in the adjudication proceedings conducted by quasi-judicial authorities unless the proceedings are arbitrary and cause serious prejudice to the parties involved. In this case, the court found no grounds for such interference and concluded that the matter did not warrant the exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the petition, emphasizing that it was not inclined to intervene in the Commissioner's discretion regarding the adjudication of the show-cause notice. The judgment concluded without any specific order as to costs, maintaining the status quo in the case.