2002 (2) TMI 126 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a writ petition regarding investigations and actions taken by authorities outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Analysis:
1. The writ petition sought relief through a writ of mandamus, requesting the respondents to act in accordance with the law during investigations against the petitioner and issue show cause notices if necessary. The petitioners also sought relief from alleged coercion and undue influence. Additionally, a writ of Certiorari was requested for the production of documents related to evasion of Central Excise duty. An interim order was sought to restrain the respondents from coercing the petitioner to pay Central Excise duty ad hoc without a show cause notice. The court noted that the investigations and payments were made in Jamshedpur, raising a question of invoking the court's writ jurisdiction.

2. The petitioners argued that the court's jurisdiction could be invoked under Article 226(2) of the Constitution due to the nexus with the case. They cited a Privy Council judgment emphasizing that actions must be taken in a prescribed manner. The petitioners contended that the authority's actions were contrary to law, affecting the rights of individuals in Kolkata. They argued that the issuance of summons should follow due process under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act, and payment should be determined before being made.

3. The petitioners claimed discrepancies in goods transportation, citing a tolerance rate and differences in calculation methods. They alleged making payments under duress for amounts they believed were extracted illegally. The Union of India contended that the High Court lacked jurisdiction due to the issuance of show cause notices from Jamshedpur. They referenced a Supreme Court judgment emphasizing the need for a nexus with the court's jurisdiction for invoking Article 226.

4. The Union of India further argued against court interference in summons or investigations, citing a Supreme Court judgment discouraging such interference. They highlighted a letter from the petitioner regarding irregularities in Central Excise duties, indicating a prior investigation request. The court emphasized the importance of jurisdiction based on the location of the cause of action and the authorities' actions outside the court's jurisdiction.

5. After considering the arguments, the court dismissed the writ petition on grounds of jurisdiction. The court clarified that dismissal based on jurisdiction did not prevent the petitioners from challenging the actions on merit in an appropriate forum. The court kept all points raised in the petition open for consideration by the appropriate court or forum, allowing the petitioners to pursue their grievances elsewhere if advised to do so.

This detailed analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the judgment, addressing the issues of jurisdiction and legal arguments presented by both parties in the case.