2007 (2) TMI 236 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order confirming demand and penalty under Central Excise Act, maintainability of writ petition, reliance on balance-sheet as evidence, invocation of Section 11A for alleged concealment, jurisdiction of High Court in fact-finding.

Analysis:
The petitioners, a private limited company and one of its directors, challenged an order confirming a demand of Rs. 69,50,934 and penalty under the Central Excise Act. The excise authorities argued that since the order is appealable under Section 35B, the writ petition is not maintainable. They contended that the petitioners were provided with documents, given a chance to present their case, and the issues were based on intelligence reports, not falling within exceptions per the Apex Court's judgment in Chanan Singh & Sons case.

The petitioners argued that the demand was for a specific period and the reliance on the balance-sheet as evidence was flawed. They claimed that the demand for certain months exceeded evidence and was therefore perverse. The authorities allegedly focused on purchase value rather than consumption, invoking Section 11A for alleged concealment. They cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Appropriate Authority v. Sudha Patil in support of their argument.

The proceedings were based on intelligence reports alleging suppression of production and clearance without paying excise duty. Such allegations automatically trigger the extended limitation period under Section 11A. The High Court clarified that it cannot delve into evidence, as that falls under the Tribunal's jurisdiction. The principles from the Sudha Patil case were deemed inapplicable, and no order was passed, allowing the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum without the court examining the case's merits.

In conclusion, the High Court did not rule on the case's merits and did not award costs. The parties were to receive urgent copies of the order upon request.