Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2015 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 429 - HC - Central ExciseCENVAT Credit - Maintainability of appeal - Jurisdiction of authority - Violation of principle of natural justice - Held that:- It is an admitted fact that the disputed transactions have been taken place within the jurisdiction of the authority who passed the impugned order. If that being the factual position, it cannot be contended that the authority who passed the impugned order does not have jurisdiction. Further, it is seen that before passing the impugned order, the petitioner was issued with a show cause notice and they also filed their reply to the same. Thereafter, personal hearing was also given to the petitioner which was attended through their Counsel. Therefore, it is clear that there is no violation of principles of natural justice as contended by the petitioner. It can not be said that the authority has passed the order without jurisdiction. Further it is to be noted at this juncture, that the petitioner on receipt of show cause notice, filed their reply to the show cause notice; participated in the adjudication proceedings and finally suffered with the order passed on merits. Therefore, the petitioner cannot now contended that the third respondent is not having jurisdiction. Moreover, it is well settled that in cases involving fiscal nature, availing of statutory appellate remedy has to be first exhausted and the party cannot come directly to this Court and file a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. When an alternative remedy is available, more particularly, in the cases of fiscal nature, invoking of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not permissible. - Following decision of Radha's case [2015 (2) TMI 437 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - writ petition is not maintainable - Decided against assessee.
|