1985 (3) TMI 66 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Relevance of documents requested in the summons for determining the price under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act.
3. Availability of an alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Act.
4. Potential misuse of summons for initiating proceedings under Section 11A of the Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Summons Issued Under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:

The summons dated September 4, 1984, issued to M/s Hindustan Safety Glass Works Limited (the Glass Works) under Section 14 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was challenged as being without jurisdiction. The Glass Works contended that the summons required the production of documents irrelevant to the determination of the price under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The court noted that Section 14 empowers a Central Excise Officer to summon any person to produce documents or give evidence necessary for any inquiry under the Act. However, the court emphasized that the documents requested must be relevant to the inquiry. The court concluded that the summons lacked jurisdiction as it demanded documents unrelated to the inquiry concerning the approval of the price list under Section 4(1)(a).

2. Relevance of Documents Requested in the Summons for Determining the Price Under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act:

The court examined the relevance of the documents listed in the schedule of the summons. It was noted that the Glass Works had been submitting classification lists for several years, including the list dated April 13, 1984, for price determination under Section 4(1)(a). The court found that many documents requested, such as the value of goods transacted through Branch Offices and price lists effective in different depots, were irrelevant for determining the price under Section 4(1)(a). The court held that the inquiry under Section 4(1)(a) should be limited to the matters specifically mentioned in that clause, and any demand for unrelated documents was impermissible.

3. Availability of an Alternative Remedy Under Section 35 of the Act:

The Assistant Collector argued that the Glass Works had an alternative remedy under Section 35 of the Act, which provides for appeals against decisions or orders passed by a Central Excise Officer. The court, however, clarified that a summons issued under Section 14 does not constitute a "decision" or "order" within the meaning of Section 35. The court explained that a summons is merely an intimation requiring a person to appear or produce documents and does not involve the determination of any question or enforcement of a decision. Consequently, the court rejected the argument that the Glass Works had an alternative remedy under Section 35, allowing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.

4. Potential Misuse of Summons for Initiating Proceedings Under Section 11A of the Act:

The Glass Works contended that the summons might be an attempt by the Assistant Collector to reopen the question of liability for past transactions or to gather material for initiating proceedings under Section 11A of the Act. Section 11A allows for the recovery of duties not levied or paid within six months (or five years in cases of fraud, collusion, etc.). The court observed that while it did not delve into the validity of this contention, the provisions of the Act, including Section 14, should be administered fairly to ensure the interest of revenue without causing unnecessary harassment to the assessee. The court cautioned against using the summons for a roving and fishing inquiry to collect material for proceedings under Section 11A.

Conclusion:

The court quashed the summons dated September 4, 1984, as it demanded the production of documents irrelevant to the inquiry under Section 4(1)(a) of the Act. The Assistant Collector was, however, allowed to proceed afresh in accordance with the law and require the Glass Works to produce relevant documents through a properly issued summons under Section 14 if necessary. The petition succeeded, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.