Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (4) TMI 55

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of Rs. 8 lakhs. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of motor vehicles. The petitioner manufactures and supplies chassis to the body builders. These chassis are supplied after the excise duty has been paid and clearance obtained from the excise department. The body builder manufactures complete bus by fabricating the body on the chassis and, after paying a duty of Rs, 8,400/-, returns the bus to the petitioner. The petitioner carries out inspection of the said bus and thereafter the same is sold to various customers. 3. The excise authorities, apart from recovering duty on the chassis manufactured by the petitioner and a fixed duty on the bus manufactured by the body builder, also demanded a duty of R .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ble the amount of duty. According to the learned Counsel no further duty than what has already been realised by the excise authorities from the petitioner and the body builder, was payable. 7. At the outset it has been contended by Mr. Lokur that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The submission of the learned Counsel is that Article 323B of the Constitution of India bars the entertaining of any petition when a Tribunal has been set up under the said Article. The learned Counsel submits that in the present case the Tribunal which has been set up is one under Article 323B and, furthermore, Section 35C(4) specifically states that the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final. Mr. Lokur also re .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the Constitution. Furthermore, Section 26 of the said Act specifically excludes the jurisdiction of all courts except the Supreme Court of India. This Act, however, has not come into operation so far. As and when this Act is made operative the jurisdiction of the High Court will be ousted in relation to those matters which are covered by the said Act. The enactment of this Act clearly shows that with the setting up of the Appellate Tribunal under Section 35B of the Central Excise Act the jurisdiction of the High Court was not ousted. 9. The decision of the Supreme Court in Sampath Kumar's case (supra) has no application here. Sampath Kumar's case was dealing with the setting up of the Administrative Tribunals which were constituted un .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... of the petitioner is against the order passed by the Tribunal at Delhi. Therefore, apart from the fact that the Union of India itself is situated in Delhi, as the impugned order is passed in Delhi, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to hear this writ petition. 12. It was then submitted by the learned Counsel for Union of India that on merits the petitioner has no case. According to Mr. Lokur after the body builder builds the body the bus comes back to the premises of the petitioner who inspects the same, carries out tests and then sells it to the customers. The learned Counsel submits that ownership in the bus always remains with; that of the petitioner and when the ownership is transferred and the delivery of tbe vehicle is made, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n is passed by the Appellate Tribunal, the same should not be lightly interfered with by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Even though this Court has jurisdiction to hear petition against such orders, it must be on rare occasions that the Court should interfere with an interlocutory order. We are in full agreement with the principles for interference with interlocutory orders laid down by a Division Bench of this Court in Escorts Limited v. Union of India, 1991 (52) E.L.T. 27, and would like to reiterate that hardship alone should not be a criterion for interfering under Article 226 of the Constitution. What is important, while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226, is that in addition to financial hardship, the petitioner .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates