1995 (1) TMI 72 - SC - Central Excise

The special leave petition filed in this Court against the judgment of the High Court do, in our opinion, amount to gross abuse of process of court, a fact which would be evident from the facts stated hereinafter. While we agree that the Revenue Authorities have been lax in not moving for early disposal of the matter, in this Court at any rate, that does not explain, condone or justify the conduct of the appellant. So far as plea of fairness in action is concerned, it is well to remember that fairness is not a one-way street. The authorities are undoubtedly bound to act fairly but so is the assessee more particularly, when he seeks to invoke the discretionary jurisdiction of the High Court or of this Court. No person has a licence to act unfairly and yet call upon others to act fairly. Civil appeal is dismissed with costs. The costs payable by the appellant to the respondents are assessed at ₹ 15,000. It is further directed that in case any duty is found payable pursuant to the show-cause notice mentioned above, the same shall be payable by the appellant with interest @ 18% p.a. calculated from the date of show-cause notice up to the date of payment.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Abuse of process of court
2. Validity of show-cause notice
3. Inspection of documents
4. Dismissal of writ petitions and appeals
5. Conduct of the appellant
6. Fairness in legal proceedings

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Abuse of Process of Court:
The Supreme Court noted that the appellant's actions amounted to a gross abuse of the process of court. The appellant repeatedly filed writ petitions and appeals challenging the same order, despite the High Court and Supreme Court dismissing earlier petitions. The Court emphasized that such tactics should not benefit the appellant and stringent terms should be imposed to deter similar conduct by others.

2. Validity of Show-Cause Notice:
The appellant challenged a show-cause notice issued by the Central Excise Authorities alleging clandestine removal of power loom cotton fabrics worth sixty-two crores without payment of excise duty. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the notice, stating that the appellant could raise all contentions in response to the show-cause notice. The Supreme Court upheld this view, noting that the appellant's subsequent petitions were an attempt to delay proceedings.

3. Inspection of Documents:
The appellant sought inspection of certain documents to defend against the show-cause notice. The Gujarat High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition requesting inspection, stating that the appellant could raise this issue in an appeal before the Tribunal if the Collector's decision was adverse. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the appellant's request for inspection had been previously rejected and could not be reopened in a subsequent petition.

4. Dismissal of Writ Petitions and Appeals:
The appellant's writ petitions and appeals were dismissed at various stages:
- The Gujarat High Court dismissed the initial writ petition challenging the show-cause notice.
- The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition against the High Court's order.
- The appellant's subsequent writ petition requesting document inspection was withdrawn.
- An appeal before the Tribunal against the refusal of document inspection was also withdrawn.
- A later writ petition challenging the same order was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court, which noted the missing court records and directed an inquiry into the disappearance of papers.

5. Conduct of the Appellant:
The Supreme Court condemned the appellant's conduct, noting that the appellant repeatedly misused the judicial process to delay proceedings. The Court highlighted that the appellant's actions led to a significant delay in the adjudication of the show-cause notice, which remained unresolved for eleven years. The Court imposed costs of Rs. 15,000 on the appellant and directed that any duty found payable would accrue interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the show-cause notice.

6. Fairness in Legal Proceedings:
The Supreme Court emphasized that fairness is a two-way street, requiring both the authorities and the assessee to act fairly. The appellant's repeated attempts to delay proceedings and misuse the judicial process were deemed unfair. The Court noted that while the Revenue Authorities were lax in seeking early disposal, this did not justify the appellant's conduct.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal with costs and directed the Central Excise Authorities to expedite the matter. The Court also imposed stringent terms to deter abuse of the judicial process, highlighting the importance of fairness and integrity in legal proceedings.