2014 (4) TMI 985 - HC - Central Excise

Writ petition - Application for issue of Writ of mandamus - Held that - Since the adjudicating authority is seized of the proceedings, recourse to the writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution is not warranted. It is always open to the petitioner to point out a binding judgment before the adjudicating authority and to make submissions on the relevant provisions of law. If that is done, it is needless to add that the adjudicating authority shall proceed in accordance with law - Decided against Petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
1. Relief sought for mandamus, cross-examination, and return of documents in ongoing adjudication proceeding.
2. Legality of adjudication order in light of principles of natural justice and binding precedents.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking various reliefs during an ongoing adjudication proceeding. The petitioner requested a writ of mandamus or a similar direction to the Respondent to comply with binding precedents and summon witnesses for cross-examination. The petitioner also sought the return of documents not relied upon in the investigation. The contention was based on a Division Bench judgment requiring the opportunity for cross-examination unless exceptions under Section 9D of the Central Excise Act, 1944, apply. The High Court noted that the adjudicating authority was already handling the proceedings, and thus, resorting to writ proceedings under Article 226 was deemed unnecessary. The Court emphasized that the petitioner could present the binding judgment and legal submissions before the adjudicating authority for due consideration, ensuring compliance with the law.

2. The High Court, considering the stage of the adjudication proceeding and the availability of legal recourse before the adjudicating authority, declined to interfere in the matter at that juncture. The Court highlighted that the petitioner could raise the binding judgment and legal provisions during the ongoing proceedings to guide the adjudicating authority in making a lawful decision. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, maintaining the status quo of the ongoing adjudication process.