Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1909 - HC - Central ExciseMaintainability of petition - order appealable to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) - whether the authorities have acted without jurisdiction in issuing a show-cause notice to the petitioner or not - SCN relates to Section 11(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - time limitation - HELD THAT:- The impugned order is appealable. The existence of a statutory alternative remedy to the petitioner is not a complete bar to the maintainability of a writ petition. A writ petition can be sustained in spite of existence of a statutory alternative remedy, in the event the petitioner able to substantiate but, the fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed or the authority had acted wholly without the jurisdiction or the impugned order is such that it shocks the conscience of the Court. In the present case, the petitioner raises a point of lack of jurisdiction on the authorities in issuing the show-cause notice. The contention of lack of jurisdiction is premised upon the show-cause notice dealing with a period which is not permissible under Section 11A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The impugned show cause which deals with a period which is barred by limitation prescribed under Section 11(4) of the Act of 1944. Limitation is a point of jurisdiction - The impugned show-cause notice alleges that there were suppression of material facts and willful misstatement on the part of the petitioner. The department relies upon on such sub-section which provides that the department is entitled to serve notice upon a person to show- cause in respect of an infringement of such sub-section within five years from the relevant date. The impugned show-cause notice relies to a period of five years from relevant date. The impugned show-cause notice, therefore, is not beyond the limitation prescribed under Section 11A(4) of the Act of 1944. The petitioner had purchased the product from Oil India Limited. So far as the Oil India is concerned, the product is classified in a particular way. However, the classification so far as the Oil India is concerned, will not continue to remain valid for the end product after a manufacturing process as undertaken by the petitioner in the instant case - neither the finding in respect of the manufacturing process nor the end product has been demonstrated to be perverse. The impugned order is otherwise reasoned. The authorities had given a personal hearing to the petitioner. The findings returned in the impugned order are plausible. - The petitioner has chosen not to prefer an appeal where the scope of the adjudicatory proceeding by the Appellate Authority is different to that available to a writ proceeding. The Appellate Authority is permitted to look into the materials made available to adjudicating authority so as to reapprise same evidence and come to a different conclusion. The petition has no merits and is not dismissed.
|