1986 (3) TMI 183 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the officers to issue show cause notices.
2. Interpretation of exemption notifications and their applicability.
3. Availability of writ jurisdiction in the presence of statutory remedies.
4. Alleged bias and breach of natural justice.

Summary:

1. Jurisdiction of the officers to issue show cause notices:
The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the officers of the Collectorate to issue two show cause notices demanding excise duty. The court noted that the petitioner had approached the court prematurely without responding to the show cause notices. The court emphasized that the petitioner should have first presented the true facts to the officers as required by the statutory process.

2. Interpretation of exemption notifications and their applicability:
The case involved three exemption notifications: Notification No. 38/73-Cus. (dated 1-3-1973), Notification No. 231/82-Cus. (dated 23-10-1982), and Notification No. 171/83 (dated 25-6-1983). The petitioner argued that the second proviso of Notification No. 171/83 provided an option to avail or not avail of the exemption on polyester chips, thereby qualifying for exemption on polyester films. The Revenue contended that no such option was provided. The court held that the interpretation of these notifications and their application to the facts should be determined by the appropriate authorities through the statutory process.

3. Availability of writ jurisdiction in the presence of statutory remedies:
The court reiterated the principle that Article 226 of the Constitution is not meant to circumvent statutory procedures unless extraordinary situations arise, such as questioning the vires of the statute or preventing public injury. The court found that the petitioner had not demonstrated any extraordinary situation or breach of fundamental principles of justice that would justify bypassing the statutory remedies.

4. Alleged bias and breach of natural justice:
The petitioner raised concerns about potential bias, arguing that the Assistant Collector who classified the goods might be biased if he heard the case related to the show cause notices. The court noted that the said Assistant Collector had been transferred and would not hear the proceedings, rendering this argument moot.

Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged with no order as to costs. The court emphasized the need for the petitioner to follow the statutory process and present their case before the appropriate authorities.