Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAVI RANJAN, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, JJ.
Naredi International – Appellant
Versus
The Commissioner of Central Excise & Service Tax – Respondent
W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021, 945 of 2020
Decided on : 29-06-2022
Central Excise - Maintainability of Writ Petitions - Central Excise Act, 1944 - Section 11A(4), 11AA/AB, 11AC, 35F, 35G, 35L - The court dismissed the writ petitions on the ground of maintainability, holding that the remedy available to assail the order was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners submitted statutory returns and paid Central Excise Duty regularly. The department found irregularities and issued show cause notices. The petitioners' replies were deemed unsatisfactory, leading to the issuance of orders confirming the demand of Central Excise Duty, interest, and penalty. The petitioners' appeals were dismissed for non-compliance with the deposit requirement under Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Subsequent appeals to the High Court were also dismissed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the writ petitions were not maintainable as the remedy available was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the writ petitions in light of the dismissal of previous appeals and the availability of an alternative remedy under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that once a tax appeal has been dismissed by the High Court, the remedy available is to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petitions, stating that the petitioners were at liberty to avail the alternative remedy available under the statute.
JUDGMENT :
It has been submitted on behalf of learned counsel for the petitioners that both the writ petitions may be heard together since similar issues are involved.
2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has also agreed for analogous hearing of both the writ petitions.
3. In view thereof, both the matters are being heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.
4. W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020 has been filed invoking the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India wherein following prayers have been made :-
b) To issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari directing the Respondents, their servants, agents and/or assigns to transmit all records pertaining to the case so that conscionable justice may be done to the petitioner by quashing the said Order-in-Original No.15/COMMR/2015 dated 04/03/2015 (Annexure-3);
c) An Interim Order directing the Respondent Authorities not to give effect to the said Order-in-Original No.15/COMMR/2015 dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure-3) and/or not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the said Order dated 04/03/2015 (Annexure-3).
In W.P.(T) No. 3174 of 2021 following prayers have been made :-
b) To issue a Writ in the nature of certiorari directing the Respondents, their servants, agents and/or assigns to transmit all records pertaining to the case so that conscionable justice may be done to the petitioner by quashing the said Order-in-Original No.08/Commr./2015 dated 23.01.2015 (Annexure-3);
c) An Interim Order directing the Respondent Authorities not to give effect to the said Order-in-Original No.08/Commr./2015 dated 23.01.2015 (Annexure-3) and/or not to take any coercive steps pursuant to the said Order dated 23.01.2015 (Annexure-3).
5. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petitions, read as hereunder :-
It is the case of the petitioners that the statutory returns have been submitted before the Central Excise Authority and accordingly payment of Central Excise Duty has also been made regularly. The officers of the department, while scrutinizing the records of the petitioners, found some irregularities to the effect that the value of M. S. Ingot cleared by the petitioner was abnormally low compared to their cost of production. The petitioners were asked to provide information/documents along with the details of electricity consumption for production of M. S. Ingots for the year 2008-09 onwards.
The petitioners, accordingly, submitted their balance sheet as well as electricity bill for the entire period. But the authority, being not satisfied, has issued notice with a direction to show cause as to why the Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs.1,29,85,210/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020) and Rs. 82,29,209/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021) should not be demanded and recovered from the petitioners under Section 11A(4), charging of interest under Section 11AA/AB and imposition of penalty under Section 11AC of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002.
The writ petitioners submitted their reply to the said show cause notice denying and disputing the allegations but the same has been found to be not satisfactory and accordingly the Order-in-Original No.15/COMMR/2015 dated 04/03/2015 (in W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020) and Order-in-Original No.08/Commr./2015 dated 23.01.2015 (in W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021) were issued by the Commissioner, Central Excise and Service Tax, Jamshedpur by which, the Commissioner confirmed the demand of Rs.1,29,85,210/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.945 of 2020) and Rs. 82,29,209/- (so far as it relates to W.P.(T) No.3174 of 2021), charged in
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the remedy available to assail the order was to file an appeal before the Supreme Court under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944.
Judicial review under Article 226 cannot be restricted by statutory limitations; writ petitions can challenge Orders-in-Original even if appeals are time-barred.
Customs, Excise and Service Tax - Appeal.
Writ petitions against quasi-judicial authorities are not maintainable if statutory remedies are available unless exceptional circumstances like natural justice violations are proven.
The court ruled that the Principal Commissioner's order was invalid due to failure to consider prior findings and the petitioner's submissions, violating principles of natural justice.
Point of law: Order of the Tribunal, dismissing the appeal for non compliance of the mandatory pre-deposit, has to be upheld and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
