1996 (9) TMI 396 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to show cause notice and order of demand under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
2. Jurisdictional validity of the show cause notice and order of demand.
3. Availability of alternative remedy through appeal.
4. Disputed questions of facts in the petitions.
5. Adjudication of entitlement to Modvat credit.
6. Applicability of writ jurisdiction in disputed factual matters.
7. Consistency and uniformity in legal proceedings.

Analysis:

The judgment by A.R. Tiwari, J., of the Madhya Pradesh High Court involves two connected petitions filed by the same petitioner.

M.P. No. 434/87:
The petitioner challenged a show cause notice and sought various reliefs, including quashing the notice and refund of a specific amount. The notice alleged contravention of Central Excise Rules leading to duty evasion. The petitioner also questioned the jurisdiction of the notice and the entitlement to Modvat credit. The respondents raised objections, including the availability of alternative remedies through appeal. The Court emphasized that disputed facts require adjudication by the appropriate forum, not a writ court. The judgment highlighted the importance of statutory forums for redressal and the impermissibility of using writ jurisdiction when statutory remedies exist.

M.P. No. 620/87:
In this petition, the petitioner challenged an order of demand related to Modvat credit. The petitioner disputed the validity of the demand and questioned the jurisdiction of the authorities. The Court reiterated the principle that matters involving disputed facts should be addressed by the appellate forum, emphasizing the need for consistency and uniformity in legal proceedings. The judgment directed the petitioner to pursue available remedies through appeal within a specified period.

The judgment concluded by disposing of both petitions with directions for the petitioner to take appropriate actions within a specified timeframe. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory procedures and refraining from using writ jurisdiction to adjudicate disputed factual matters. The parties were allowed to contest the issues before the appropriate authorities, emphasizing the significance of consistency and uniformity in legal proceedings.