9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (12) TMI 279 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Principles of Natural Justice - Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity, Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 - HELD THAT - The alternative remedy of appeal is efficacious and the reason given for not invoking the same i.e. pre-deposit being burdensome does not appeal to us. Accordingly, we relegate the petitioners to the remedy available under the CGST Act by way of appeal. The challenge to the vires of Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Rules is rather without substance and therefore we do not consider it necessary to deal with the same in this case. Petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Constitutionality of Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity, Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008. 2. Legality and validity of the impugned Order dated 21.08.2019. 3. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses. 4. Availability and necessity of alternative remedy by way of appeal under the CGST Act. 5. Violation of principles of natural justice. Detailed Analysis: 1. Constitutionality of Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity, Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008: The petitioner sought a declaration that Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Rules is ultra vires Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, and unconstitutional. However, the court observed that the challenge to the vires of Rule 17(2) was without substance and did not find it necessary to address this issue in detail. 2. Legality and validity of the impugned Order dated 21.08.2019: The petitioner argued that the impugned order demanding excise duty of ?59,60,53,224 was passed without affording an opportunity to cross-examine the investigating officers, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court noted that the petitioner had several opportunities for personal hearings but failed to attend them. The court also emphasized that the petitioner should have availed the alternative remedy of filing an appeal under the CGST Act. 3. Denial of cross-examination of witnesses: The petitioner contended that the denial of the request to cross-examine FDA officers and police officers who drew up the panchanamas was arbitrary and illegal. The court noted that the petitioner had made a specific request for cross-examination, which was rejected by the respondent. The court, however, did not find this sufficient to invoke its writ jurisdiction, emphasizing the availability of an alternative remedy. 4. Availability and necessity of alternative remedy by way of appeal under the CGST Act: The court highlighted the availability of an efficacious alternative remedy by way of appeal under the CGST Act. The petitioner argued that the pre-deposit required for filing an appeal would be burdensome. However, the court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, which emphasized that where a statute provides a complete machinery to challenge an order, the remedy provided by the statute must be availed of. The court was not persuaded by the petitioner's reason for not invoking the alternative remedy. 5. Violation of principles of natural justice: The petitioner claimed that the impugned order was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity for cross-examination was provided. The respondent countered that multiple opportunities for personal hearing were given, which the petitioner did not utilize. The court concluded that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was granted sufficient opportunities during the proceedings. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions, relegating the petitioner to the remedy available under the CGST Act by way of appeal. The court also noted that the challenge to the vires of Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Rules was without substance. All contentions were left open to be agitated before the appellate forum, and there were no costs in the matter.
|
