9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Common Central Excise Registration for Two Divisions 2. Alternative Remedy and Maintainability of Writ Petition Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Common Central Excise Registration for Two Divisions: The appellant company operates two manufacturing divisions: one for Sugar and Molasses, and the other for Industrial and Potable Alcohol. These divisions are located across a public road, maintaining separate Central Excise registrations and statutory records. The respondent sought a common registration for both divisions and applied to the jurisdictional Commissioner of Central Excise, who rejected the application based on the Bombay High Court's decision in Jensen and Nicholson (India) Ltd. v. Union of India, stating that the divisions could not be considered as situated in the same place of business. The respondent-company appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the two divisions are parts of the same factory, separated only by a road, with common balance sheets, accounting records, and tax assessments. They cited Notification No. 35/2001 CE (NT) and Trade Notice No. 98-CE/94, which allow single registration for premises separated by a road. The Tribunal, in its order dated 5th December 2001, set aside the Commissioner's decision, directing the issuance of a single central registration for both divisions. The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had erroneously applied the High Court's decision to the case at hand, as the two divisions were in the same premises, separated only by a road, and thus entitled to single registration under the relevant Trade Notice. 2. Alternative Remedy and Maintainability of Writ Petition: The respondents raised a preliminary objection, stating that the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act and had already filed a Central Excise Reference Application. They argued that the petitioner could not pursue two parallel remedies simultaneously, making the writ petition non-maintainable. The petitioner countered that the High Court could not quash the Tribunal's order, grant a stay, or delve into factual aspects in a reference under Section 35H. The petitioner also argued that reference proceedings are not an alternative remedy. The court examined several precedents, including decisions from the Supreme Court, which emphasized that the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar the jurisdiction of the High Court but is a factor in exercising discretion. The court concluded that the petitioner could not pursue both remedies simultaneously and that the writ petition was not maintainable, given the alternative remedy already being pursued under Section 35H. Conclusion: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act. The Tribunal's decision to grant a single central registration for the two divisions was upheld, as the Commissioner had erred in applying the High Court's decision to the case at hand. The court emphasized the principle of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking writ jurisdiction.
|
