1998 (3) TMI 156 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Impugned order by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun regarding finalization of Bought Out Items.
2. Petitioner's request to keep the petition pending based on a High Power Level Committee submission.
3. Reference to two cases by the petitioner's counsel regarding public sector undertakings and litigation.
4. Observations of the Supreme Court on the need for clearance from the High Power Committee before filing appeals or petitions.
5. Clarification on the obligation of courts and tribunals to demand clearance from the Committee before proceeding with disputes.
6. Petitioner's submission on the filing of a Writ Petition without any limitation impediment.
7. Contextual analysis of the second case referred to by the petitioner's counsel regarding reducing litigation by the State.
8. Evaluation of the provisional order received by the petitioner and the option to file an appeal under Section 35, Chapter VIA of the Act.
9. Dismissal of the Writ Petition as misconceived.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a Writ Petition filed by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd., challenging an order by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun, finalizing Bought Out Items. The order clarified the provisional nature of the assessment and indicated that other issues would be addressed separately in due course.

2. The petitioner requested to keep the petition pending based on a submission made to the High Power Level Committee, citing a precedent where the Supreme Court advised against public sector undertakings engaging in litigation that consumes public resources unnecessarily.

3. The petitioner's counsel referenced two cases involving the Oil and Natural Gas Commission, emphasizing the Supreme Court's stance on reducing litigation involving public sector undertakings and advocating for clearance from the High Power Committee before initiating legal proceedings.

4. The Supreme Court's observations highlighted the importance of obtaining clearance from the High Power Committee before filing appeals or petitions to save limitation periods, emphasizing the need for internal resolution of disputes within government entities.

5. The judgment clarified that courts and tribunals must demand clearance from the Committee before proceeding with disputes, underscoring the significance of internal resolution mechanisms within government bodies to minimize unnecessary litigation.

6. The petitioner argued that there should be no impediment to filing a Writ Petition and requested the court to entertain the petition without limitations to avoid potential issues later.

7. The analysis of the second case referred to by the petitioner's counsel emphasized the need to reduce litigation involving the government and its entities, suggesting that disputes should ideally be resolved internally before escalating to formal legal proceedings.

8. The judgment evaluated the provisional order received by the petitioner and advised on the option to file an appeal under the relevant section of the Act if aggrieved by the order, ultimately deeming the Writ Petition misconceived and dismissing it accordingly.

9. The Writ Petition was dismissed as misconceived, concluding the court's decision on the matter raised by M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. regarding the impugned order issued by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Dehradun.