2006 (3) TMI 179 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the authority to issue show cause notices.
2. Non-supply of documents to the petitioner.
3. Maintainability of the writ petitions in light of the availability of an alternative remedy.
4. Violation of principles of natural justice.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the authority to issue show cause notices:
The petitioner initially challenged the jurisdiction of the authority to issue show cause notices. The High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the show cause notices. However, on appeal, the Division Bench reversed this decision, holding that the learned Single Judge's finding of lack of jurisdiction was erroneous.

2. Non-supply of documents to the petitioner:
The petitioner contended that they were not supplied with 34 specific documents, which hindered their ability to submit effective replies to the show cause notices. The respondents countered this by detailing the extensive opportunities given to the petitioner to inspect and copy the documents, including allowing the petitioner to install their own Xerox machine in the respondents' office. The respondents also highlighted that the petitioner had repeatedly requested and been granted extensions for examining the documents. The court noted that the petitioner did not raise the issue of non-supply of documents during the first round of litigation and only brought it up after the dismissal of their initial writ petitions.

3. Maintainability of the writ petitions in light of the availability of an alternative remedy:
The court addressed the question of whether the writ petitions should be entertained given the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal. The court emphasized that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction due to the availability of an alternative remedy is discretionary and not mandatory. However, it found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances, such as a violation of fundamental rights, failure of natural justice, or orders passed without jurisdiction, that would justify bypassing the alternative remedy. The court concluded that the petitioner should have pursued the statutory remedy of appeal.

4. Violation of principles of natural justice:
The petitioner argued that the ex parte orders were passed without providing them a reasonable opportunity to be heard, thus violating the principles of natural justice. The court found that the petitioner had been given ample opportunities to inspect and copy the documents and that the respondents had complied with the court's directions to provide the documents if not already supplied. The court held that the petitioner's repeated requests for extensions and subsequent silence indicated an attempt to delay the proceedings. The court concluded that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed all three writ petitions, holding that the petitioner had been given sufficient opportunities to access the required documents and that the plea of non-supply of documents was an attempt to delay the proceedings. The court also held that the writ petitions were not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy and that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitions were dismissed, with each party bearing its own costs.