9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (9) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... single judge order on not entering into investigation in such proceedings, sustainable. - 1116 of 2004 - - - Dated:- 10-9-2007 - S.S. Nijjar, C.J. and Tapen Sen, J. Shri Ramesh Chowdhury with Ms. Saswati Joardar, Advocates, for the Appellant. S/Shri Sibdas Banerjee, Sr. Advocate with Malay Singh, Advocate, for the Respondent. [Order]. - The Court (Oral) : The appellant-petitioner has filed the Writ petition praying for issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith rescind, cancel and/or modify the purported order dated 4th of August 2003 (Annoxure P-5). He also prayed for issue of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the respondents to forthwith grant and pay a further amount o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt, cannot, in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India adjudicate disputes with regard to the extent of the information given by the informer or the exact amount of duty and penalty recovered, on the basis of the information. It is not for the writ court to determine the extent to which duty has been recovered on account of information provided by the informer and the extent to which duty has been recovered by investigation through the Department's own machinery. In any case, reward as per the Circular dated 31st March, 1985 is an ex-gratia discretionary payment that cannot be claimed as of right". 3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of the learned single Judge dated 18-7-2006 [2007 (214) E.L.T. 326 (Cal.)] the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs. Independent efforts made by the Customs authorities led to realisation of Rs. 2,27,38,162/- in respect of 8 Bills of Entry. This amount, therefore, had nothing to do with the information given by the petitioner. The importer ultimately ended up paying the outstanding duties of Rs. 27,38,162/-against confirmed demand order dated 30th March 1998, interest of Rs. 32,73,343/- and Rs. 37,16,222/- in respect of imports made from Air Cargo Complex. These imports from Air Cargo Complex had no relation with the information which had been given by the petitioner who claimed to have provided information with regard to the consignment imported by sea. The Reward Committee set up at New Delhi comprising the Director General, Central Excise Inspe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tage, is that he would be satisfied if the matter was reconsidered by the Competent Authorities after the entire materials are placed before them. We see no reason to accept such a submission. It was for the petitioner to place before the learned single Judge the materials on the basis of which he claims that he is entitled to receive further sum of Rs. 24.60 lakhs. In our opinion, the learned single Judge has correctly come to the conclusion that in a Writ proceedings it would not be possible to enter into an investigation as to whether the amount has been correctly paid to the petitioner or not. In exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court would only consider the decision making process and not the de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
