2005 (9) TMI 116 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to the notice dated 16-8-2004 issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, NOIDA on grounds of illegal conduct and violation of natural justice.
Preliminary objection raised regarding the belated filing of the petition.
Allegations of biased conduct by the Commissioner of Central Excise.
Contention regarding the notice dated 11-6-2004 issued without proper approval.

Analysis:

The petitioners, a partnership firm registered as a 100% Export Oriented Unit, sought relief through a writ petition against the Commissioner of Central Excise, NOIDA, challenging the notice dated 16-8-2004. The petitioners alleged illegal, malicious, and biased conduct by the Commissioner, claiming violations of natural justice and Circulars of the Central Board of Excise and Customs. They requested the quashing of the notice or a change of the adjudicating officer. The Stamp Reporter Section reported a delay of 299 days in filing the petition beyond the usual 90-day period.

During the hearing, the petitioners' Senior Counsel argued against the conduct of the Commissioner, emphasizing violations of principles of natural justice and Circulars under Section 37B of the Central Excise Act. The respondents' counsel raised a preliminary objection citing the belated challenge to the notice dated 16-8-2004. They pointed out the petitioners' participation in the proceedings post-notice issuance, including filing replies and receiving necessary documents. The respondents argued for the dismissal of the petition due to laches, especially since it targeted a show cause notice.

The Senior Counsel for the petitioners countered the objection, stating that the challenge was filed upon acquiring knowledge of certain letters revealing the role of involved officers. The Court reviewed the letters dated 14-5-2004, 4-6-2004, and 11-6-2004, highlighting attempts to hinder the investigation and deferred fixation of wastage norms. The Court found the petitioners' claims vague and noted their prior allegations of biased conduct by the Commissioner. Despite the Senior Counsel's arguments, the Court held the petitioners accountable for laches, dismissing the petition primarily on that ground.

Regarding the notice dated 11-6-2004, the Senior Counsel attempted to challenge it on merits, questioning its issuance without proper approval. The Court directed such contentions to be raised before the Commissioner of Central Excise handling the matter pursuant to the notice dated 16-8-2004, ensuring due consideration and lawful decision-making processes.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition due to laches, emphasizing the importance of timely legal actions. No costs were awarded in the judgment.