2002 (7) TMI 110 - HC - Central Excise

Issues:
1. Petition seeking direction to waive interest payable on disputed amount.
2. Interpretation of Trade Notice No. 47/86-C.E. and Amnesty Scheme.
3. Rejection of relief under the Amnesty Scheme.
4. Compliance with court orders and directions by the petitioner.
5. Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Issue 1: Petition seeking direction to waive interest payable on disputed amount:
The petitioners sought direction against the respondent Union of India to waive the interest payable on the amount in dispute related to the imports of man-made fibres. The petitioners argued that they should be treated similarly to another company, M/s. Shruti Synthetics Ltd., in terms of interest waiver.

Issue 2: Interpretation of Trade Notice No. 47/86-C.E. and Amnesty Scheme:
The Trade Notice No. 47/86-C.E. issued by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Jaipur, provided a scheme for compounding of offenses and settlement of court cases. The petitioners contended that their case should be considered under Para 4 of the Trade Notice, which they believed did not have a cut-off date for applications.

Issue 3: Rejection of relief under the Amnesty Scheme:
The authorities rejected the petitioners' application for settlement under the Amnesty Scheme, stating that the declaration was submitted after the specified cut-off date of 31st December 1986. This rejection was based on the grounds that the petitioners were not entitled to relief under the Scheme due to the late submission of their application.

Issue 4: Compliance with court orders and directions by the petitioner:
The Bombay High Court had directed the petitioners to pay the differential duty and had stayed the recovery of interest for a period to allow the petitioners to seek waiver of interest. However, the petitioners failed to comply with the court's directions to deposit the interest amount within the specified time frame, leading to subsequent orders for payment and non-compliance.

Issue 5: Invocation of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India:
The High Court, after considering the facts and the petitioner's actions, concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. The Court found that the petitioner had not followed the court's directions, failed to comply with the specified deadlines, and was deemed to be abusing the court's process. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the writ petition seeking waiver of interest on the disputed amount, as the petitioner failed to comply with court directions, did not meet the requirements of the Amnesty Scheme, and was deemed to be abusing the court's process. The interpretation of the Trade Notice and the rejection of relief under the Scheme were crucial factors in the court's decision.

← Previous Next →