2020 (2) TMI 6 - HC - Central Excise

Valdity of SCN - pre-mature stage - recovery claim - HELD THAT - Vide impugned SCN, this petitioner has been called upon to show cause as to why the aforesaid amount should not be recovered from them. Thus, it appears that the final adjudication of the show cause notice by the respondent is yet to take place and hence we see no reason to entertain this writ petition at a pre-mature stage. It is also submitted by learned counsel for both the sides that the aforesaid show cause is yet to be replied by the petitioner despite the fact that it was issued in the month of September, 2019. Petition dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to show cause notice for recovery of a substantial sum.
2. Premature filing of writ petition before final adjudication of show cause notice.
3. Applicability of excise law as a complete code for redressal in excise matters.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner filed a writ petition against a show cause notice issued by the respondent for the recovery of a significant amount. The notice dated 23rd September, 2019, demanded a sum of ?13,12,03,670. Both parties were represented by their respective counsels during the hearing. The court noted that the final adjudication of the show cause notice was pending, indicating a premature stage for entertaining the writ petition. Despite the notice being issued in September 2019, the petitioner had not yet responded to it. The court emphasized the importance of allowing the statutory process to unfold before seeking judicial intervention.

2. Referring to the case law of Commissioner of Central Excise, Haldia v. Krishna Wax (P) Ltd., the court highlighted the principle that excise law constitutes a comprehensive legal framework for addressing excise-related issues. Quoting the Supreme Court's stance from previous cases, the court reiterated that raising objections before the issuing authority and utilizing existing legal provisions for redressal were essential steps before approaching the writ court. Citing precedents like Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Limited and Malladi Drugs and Pharma Ltd. v. Union of India, the court emphasized the necessity for exhausting administrative remedies before seeking judicial intervention. In light of these legal principles, the court found no grounds to entertain the writ petition challenging the show cause notice.

3. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, aligning its decision with the legal precedent that the excise law serves as a self-contained mechanism for addressing excise-related disputes. By emphasizing the need for exhausting administrative remedies and following the established legal procedures, the court underscored the importance of adhering to the statutory framework before seeking judicial redress. The judgment reaffirmed the principle that premature challenges to show cause notices are not maintainable in writ proceedings, reiterating the need for compliance with statutory processes before resorting to judicial remedies.