9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (2) TMI 117X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3.Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the dealers of steel materials. They purchase large number of steel materials from the companies like TISCO and SAIL. They pray their usual excise duties. They sell it to small traders who, in turn, entitled for benefit under Modvat scheme made for themselves. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are not at all entitled for such benefit. Good, bad, indifferent, Commissioner of Central Excise adversely held against the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and imposed penalty upon themselves. However, being aggrieved by or dissatisfied therewith such respondents preferred an appeal before the CEGAT. In CEGAT when the judicial member therein affirmed the order of the Commissioner of Central Excise in imposing penalty but the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t. For the purpose of redressal of the grievance in connection with the factual investigation prior to the same. In further the writ petition was moved before Division Bench of this Court taking the plea that the order of CEGAT is governed under Articles 323A and 323B of the Constitution of India, therefore, the Division Bench is the proper form, Ultimately, the Division Bench opined that the application of L. Chandrakumar's case which was likely to the view point of the petitioner, reported in 1997 (92) E.L.T. 318 (S.C.) is not applicable in the present case, therefore, the jurisdiction of the Single Bench is wide enough to hear out the matter and come to a definite conclusion in this respect. Hearing of the writ petition before this court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the other hand, petitioner wanted to say before the Court that the writ jurisdiction was invoked due to violation of fundamental right of such governmental authority. I am surprised that how the fundamental right to a governmental authority has been violated is unknown to this Court. The Central Excise Authority is nothing but a creature of statute unlike the ordinary citizen. They have to follow the legal process. They cannot bypass such process and allow the time to expire and invoke the writ jurisdiction to avail of the alternative mode of justice by way of a writ proceeding. Even to that extent, a five judges' Bench of the Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1327 (S.C.) = AIR 1961 SC 1506 (A.V. Venkateswaran, Collec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom mis-conception of law. At no point of time, the Court says that alternative remedy is bar unless and until it is clearly prohibited. But such alternative remedy cannot be made available to a defaulting statutory authority to overcome the situation. The public exchequer is not made for the same. Public money has some value which cannot be used to save any incompetent or unrully authority. In such case, costs of such dispute should borne out from his/her or their salary or salaries for misutilising public office. 8.Factually, the petitioner is not asking any judicial review but factual review either by the writ court itself or by sending the matter back ignoring the legal principles to the Tribunal which is the final fact finding author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
