2003 (11) TMI 102 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
- Petition for direction to permit cross-examination of witnesses
- Quashing of order denying cross-examination request
- Prematurity of the writ petition due to no adverse order passed yet

Analysis:
The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing paints and varnish, sought a direction for cross-examining 17 witnesses in response to a show cause notice issued by the Directorate General, Anti-Evasion. The petitioner's application for cross-examination was denied through a letter dated 8-9-2003. The High Court noted that no adverse order imposing Central Excise duty or penalty had been passed against the petitioner, deeming the writ petition premature. The Court referenced a Division Bench decision of the Bombay High Court and distinguished it, emphasizing that in the absence of an adverse order, the need for cross-examination was premature. The Court highlighted the possibility that the statements in question may not be relevant for excise duty and penalty purposes, emphasizing that the current scenario was based on speculation.

The Court held that a writ petition is maintainable when an adverse order imposing excise duty or penalty is passed against the petitioner. As no such order had been issued in this case, the petition was dismissed as premature. However, the Court clarified that if an adverse order is eventually passed against the petitioner, allowing him to challenge it before the appropriate forum at that stage. The judgment underscored the importance of waiting for a concrete adverse decision before seeking judicial intervention, ensuring the proper stage for legal recourse is reached for effective redressal of grievances.