1996 (3) TMI 145 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the writ application.
Validity of the relief granted to the writ petitioners.
Applicability of promissory estoppel in the case.
Involvement of Excise Authorities in the proceedings.
Delay in seeking relief and abuse of court process.

Jurisdiction Issue:
The court analyzed the grounds on which jurisdiction was claimed by the writ petitioner, focusing on the location of receipt of the notification, alleged losses in Calcutta, and the presence of relevant authorities in Calcutta. The court cited precedents to establish that mere awareness of the notification within the court's jurisdiction is insufficient to confer jurisdiction. It was emphasized that the cause of action did not arise within the court's territorial limits, especially in matters related to Central Excise conducted outside West Bengal.

Validity of Relief Granted:
The court examined the promissory estoppel argument raised by the writ petitioners, emphasizing that the notification in question explicitly stated its validity until 1984. The court rejected the extension of benefits based on a ministerial statement, asserting that statutory provisions must be adhered to strictly. Reference was made to a Delhi High Court decision and other High Court rulings supporting the interpretation that ministerial statements cannot alter notification terms.

Applicability of Promissory Estoppel:
The court discussed the promissory estoppel aspect, noting that current legal views do not require proof of detrimental reliance to invoke the doctrine. The court concluded that loss, if any, was not a crucial factor in this context.

Involvement of Excise Authorities:
The court highlighted the absence of Excise Authorities as parties to the proceedings, emphasizing that the relevant parties included in the case were not directly related to the core issue. The court also noted a lack of bona fides in the writ petitioners' actions, suggesting an abuse of the court's process.

Delay and Abuse of Court Process:
The court expressed concerns about delays in seeking relief and perceived misuse of the court's jurisdiction. The court hinted at an abuse of process due to the lack of involvement of Excise Authorities and the overall handling of the case.

Conclusion:
The court ruled that the jurisdictional grounds were insufficient to entertain the writ application. Additionally, the relief granted to the writ petitioners was deemed invalid based on the expiration of the notification in 1984 and the strict statutory requirements for exemption. The court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders under appeal, and permitted the encashment of bank guarantees. The court urged the lower court to expedite the disposal of the pending writ application.