9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2006 (10) TMI 153 - HC - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Supply of documents by the respondents to the petitioners. 2. Modification/clarification regarding the documents to be supplied by the department. 3. Further directions sought by the petitioners before the adjudicating authority. 4. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Dismissal of the application seeking further directions. Analysis: Issue 1: Supply of documents by the respondents to the petitioners The initial order passed by the Court directed the respondents to supply the documents sought by the petitioners before proceeding further in the matter. The stay of passing the final adjudication order was vacated, and the petitioners were asked to appear before the authorities for further proceedings on a specified date. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the documents had been supplied before adjudication of the dispute. Issue 2: Modification/clarification regarding the documents to be supplied by the department Upon an application by the Revenue, seeking modification/clarification of the order, the Court considered the request. The department contended that they may only be required to supply seized/relied upon documents and not the entire range record. The Court noted that the matter was pending consideration before the adjudicating authority and that the issue of non-availability of certain documents would be addressed by the adjudicating authority itself. Issue 3: Further directions sought by the petitioners before the adjudicating authority The petitioners moved an application seeking additional directions, including the supply of all documents, permission for cross-examination of witnesses, and a stay on proceedings until completion of cross-examination. The Court observed that the petitioners appeared to be interested in delaying the proceedings and seeking control over the adjudication process, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India The Court reiterated that the jurisdiction under Article 226 did not extend to controlling day-to-day proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer. The Court found the application to be an attempt to review the earlier order or delay the proceedings and, therefore, dismissed the application for further directions. Issue 5: Dismissal of the application seeking further directions After hearing the counsels for the parties, the Court concluded that comprehensive directions had already been issued, and the application seemed to be an attempt to review the earlier order or delay the proceedings. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the application and dismissed it. The counsels for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the application, which was granted by the Court.
|
