2017 (5) TMI 336 - HC - Central Excise

Whether the Respondents having once failed in their attempt to get the CCESC reopen the proceedings by invoking Section 32 K(3) of the CE Act, could have again gone before the CCESC with another application on the same grounds and asking for an identical relief, namely, annulment of the final order dated 14th December, 2015 passed by the CCESC? Held that - Whatever may be the grounds, which are pleas of the Respondents, may have been justified, the Respondents did make an attempt by filing an application before the CCESC by invoking Section 32 (K)(3) of the CE Act. That attempt was not successful. With that attempt having failed, as is made clear by the communication dated 16th December, 2015, the next course available to the Respondents was to file a writ petition before this Court in which they could have questioned both the earlier order dated 14th October, 2015 and the subsequent order dated 16th December, 2015. However, going back to the CCESC six months thereafter with another application seeking the same relief, was impermissible in law. There is no question of a party going repeatedly before the CCESC with an application for identical prayer, once having failed before the CCESC. Recognising such a remedy would be fraught with grave consequences as it will give unbridled powers to the CCESC to get the review order over and over again. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction of the Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission to entertain review applications.
2. Permissibility of filing multiple applications seeking the same relief before the Commission.
3. Legal remedies available to parties aggrieved by orders of the Commission.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Jurisdiction of the Customs & Central Excise Settlement Commission (CCESC) to entertain review applications
The case involved a final order passed by the CCESC under Section 32E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, settling customs excise duty payable by the petitioner. Subsequently, applications were filed by the Principal Commissioner and the Director General seeking review of the final order on grounds of forged documents submitted by the petitioner. The CCESC entertained these applications, leading to a challenge on the jurisdiction of the Commission to do so after rejecting a previous application. The Court examined the provisions of the Act and concluded that the CCESC lacked jurisdiction to consider the subsequent review application once the initial attempt had failed. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and remedies available under the law.

Issue 2: Permissibility of filing multiple applications seeking the same relief before the Commission
The Court addressed the question of whether the respondents could file another application seeking annulment of the final order after a previous attempt was rejected by the CCESC. It was held that allowing repeated applications for the same relief would undermine the legal process and grant excessive powers to the Commission. The Court emphasized that parties must exhaust available remedies and not abuse the system by repeatedly seeking review of orders. The decision highlighted the need for parties to respect the finality of legal proceedings and pursue appropriate legal remedies in case of grievances.

Issue 3: Legal remedies available to parties aggrieved by orders of the Commission
The judgment clarified that parties aggrieved by orders of the CCESC have legal recourse through avenues such as filing writ petitions before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and utilizing available legal remedies effectively. It was made clear that parties must respect the legal framework and not misuse the system by repeatedly approaching the Commission for the same relief. The judgment underscored the significance of upholding legal principles and ensuring fair and just proceedings in matters involving settlement commissions.

In conclusion, the Court nullified the proceedings arising from the second application filed by the respondents before the CCESC, emphasizing the need to adhere to legal procedures and respect the finality of decisions. The judgment highlighted the importance of following due process and utilizing appropriate legal remedies in cases of dispute or grievance.