9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Quashment of show cause notice under Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. 2. Jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in writ jurisdiction. 3. Availability of alternative remedy before contesting the notice. 4. Interpretation of Section 11A for adjudication of excise duty matters. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioners sought quashment of the show cause notice issued by the Collector of Central Excise under Section 11A of the Act, alleging illegal availing of Modvat credit. The notice claimed misuse of credit for scooters instead of mopeds, leading to evasion of duty. The petitioners argued that both products were considered one final product, 'motor cycles,' under the Act, and there was no misstatement or suppression of facts. They contended that the notice was without jurisdiction and barred by limitation. Issue 2: The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the tenability of the petition, arguing for the availability of an alternative remedy before contesting the notice directly. The petitioners, however, claimed that the show cause notice being without jurisdiction could be subject to interference in the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. They cited relevant case laws to support their position. Issue 3: The Court examined the power of the Collector, Central Excise under Section 11A to issue show cause notices for duty-related matters. It was highlighted that the statute provided a complete code for adjudication, with appeal provisions under Section 35B. The Court emphasized that resorting to writ jurisdiction when an alternative remedy was available was impermissible. Issue 4: The Court referred to previous judgments emphasizing the importance of allowing statutory forums to address specified grievances and not permitting parties to bypass such forums by approaching the High Court under Article 226. The Court declined to delve into the merits of the petition, dismissing it and advising the petitioners to raise their contentions before the appropriate authority. The judgment reiterated the principle that powers under Article 226 should not render statutory authorities non-functional. The Court concluded by dismissing the petition, leaving the petitioners with the option to pursue appellate jurisdiction under the Act if faced with an adverse order. The stay order was vacated, and any security deposit was to be refunded to the petitioner after verification.
|
