1991 (10) TMI 55 - HC - Central Excise

Writ jurisdiction - Show cause notice - Adequate guidelines for issuance thereof available - Writ jurisdiction - Show Cause Notice

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the authority issuing the notice.
2. Limitation period for assessment under the Central Excise Act.
3. Appropriateness of invoking Article 226 of the Constitution for relief.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Authority Issuing the Notice:
The petitioner company contested the jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise to issue a show cause notice. The court noted that the initial jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector was not in dispute, as conceded by the petitioners. The petitioners argued that the jurisdiction was subsequently lost due to the operation of the limitation provision. The court clarified that the concept of jurisdiction often gets confused and is not comprehended with necessary clarity. The court referred to various precedents to illustrate that a decision on the question of limitation does not pertain to the initial jurisdiction itself. Therefore, the court concluded that the jurisdiction of the authority was not denuded by the limitation provision.

2. Limitation Period for Assessment under the Central Excise Act:
The petitioners argued that the assessment was barred by the limitation period prescribed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. The court discussed the ordinary period of six months for assessment and the extended period of five years for cases involving fraud, collusion, or suppression of facts. The court referred to authoritative decisions, such as Collector of Central Excise v. Chemphar Drugs & Liniments, to explain the scope and content of Section 11A. The court emphasized that factual findings on limitation issues require close scrutiny of materials and documents, which is better done by the officer dealing with the matters routinely. The court concluded that it was not obligatory for the Constitutional Court to decide on factual aspects of limitation questions under Article 226.

3. Appropriateness of Invoking Article 226 of the Constitution for Relief:
The court addressed the threshold objection that the petitioner had an alternate statutory remedy and should not resort to Article 226. The court acknowledged that if jurisdiction is totally denuded, Constitutional Courts may relieve a citizen of burdensome litigation. However, the court emphasized that issues involving factual findings are better handled by the relevant authorities. The court noted that the High Court is burdened with a heavy workload and should not deal with matters that can be addressed by other administrative or quasi-judicial agencies. The court cited various decisions to support its view that it is not proper to invoke Article 226 in such circumstances. The court concluded that on principle, precedent, and practicality, the petitioners should be relegated to remedies available under the statute itself and declined jurisdiction under Article 226.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to pursue remedies available under the statute. The court emphasized the need to maintain the Constitutional machinery within its workable sphere and declined immediate and direct reliefs under Article 226.