1992 (10) TMI 104 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to validity of Central Excise orders, Jurisdiction of Assistant Collector, Interpretation of Notification No. 201/79, Availability of alternative remedy, Jurisdiction of High Court.

Analysis:

The petitioner challenged the validity of the Assistant Collector's order and subsequent consequential orders, seeking a Writ of Mandamus to declare them illegal and void. The petitioner, a limited company, availed proforma credits for various items, including burnt lime, under Central Excise Rules. The Assistant Collector issued a show cause notice questioning the credits, leading to an order disallowing credits for certain items. Subsequently, another show cause notice was issued, resulting in the withdrawal of credits for burnt lime and other items, with a demand for repayment. The petitioner contended that the orders were without jurisdiction and that burnt lime qualified as an input under Notification No. 201/79.

The Assistant Collector, in response, argued that the impugned order was not passed under specific sections of the Act and that burnt lime was not a valid input for proforma credits. The Assistant Collector maintained that the petitioner had the option to appeal, making the Writ Petition not maintainable. The High Court noted that the rule requiring exhaustion of alternative remedies is discretionary, not mandatory, especially when the impugned act lacks jurisdiction and factual disputes exist.

Regarding the Assistant Collector's jurisdiction, the High Court found that the impugned order lacked a legal basis. The Assistant Collector did not have the power of suo motu revision against the earlier order, and the impugned order could not be sustained under the relevant notification. The High Court held that the impugned orders were without jurisdiction and declared them illegal and void. Consequently, the Writ Petition was allowed with costs.

In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding that the Assistant Collector's orders were without jurisdiction and declaring them illegal and void. The Court emphasized the lack of legal basis for the impugned order and the absence of revisional power in the Assistant Collector's actions. The petitioner's challenge to the validity of the Central Excise orders was upheld, granting relief through the Writ of Mandamus.