1988 (10) TMI 47 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to notice to show cause, Allegations of harassment by officials, Alleged interpolation in recovery memo, Jurisdiction of adjudicating authority, Scheme of award by Government, Questioning the scheme through an amendment, Court's powers under Article 226.

Analysis:
The petitioner challenged a notice to show cause, citing harassment by officials of the Collectorate of Central Excise. The officials conducted raids and searches on the petitioner's premises without finding anything incriminating. The petitioner alleged that the officials harassed not only him but also other businessmen, leading to the preparation of a recovery memo with interpolations to damage the petitioner's reputation. The petitioner challenged the notice on various grounds, including the alleged interpolation in the recovery memo.

The High Court noted that the adjudication proceedings were pending, and the adjudication had to be done by the first respondent, who was the adjudicating authority. The court refused to entertain the original petition at that stage, stating that there were no allegations of personal mala fides against the adjudicating authority. The court emphasized that the contentions raised by the petitioner required a detailed inquiry based on facts, evidence, and circumstances of the case, which could only be done before the adjudicating authority.

Regarding the scheme of award formulated by the Central Government, the court observed that it did not appear to have prejudiced the petitioner. The petitioner had questioned the scheme through an amendment, but since no rewards had been granted in the petitioner's case, the court found no cause of action to challenge the scheme at that stage. The court highlighted that the adjudicatory authority had to perform its statutory duty of adjudication, and as long as the award scheme had not been implemented in the petitioner's case, the adjudication proceedings could not be stopped.

The court acknowledged the wide powers under Article 226 to quash the notice if grounds existed but emphasized that such grounds required a factual investigation best done by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the court declined to entertain the original petition and allowed the petitioner to raise the questions before the first respondent during the adjudication process. Ultimately, the original petition was dismissed, and the order on the related application was also dismissed.