Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (7) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1430 - HC - CustomsJurisdiction - power of Additional Director General, Ahmedabad to issue SCN - whether the show-cause notice was issued by the competent authority or not? - availability of alternative remedy - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, in the present case, two show-cause notices were issued by the Additional Director General, DGCEI Ahmedabad. One of the show-cause noticee was answerable to the Commissioner (Customs), Exports, Uran – District – Raigarh and the other was answerable to the Additional Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Indore. The respondent No.4 has issued a show-cause notice dated 30.01.2004 to the petitioner to show cause the respondent No.3 as to why the duty drawback amounting to ₹ 6,40,92,368/- wrongly availed by the petitioner should not be disallowed under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rule, 1995 and recovery of Central Excise Duties amounting to ₹ 2,25,930/- under Rule 12 of the CENVAT Credit Rules and recovery of ₹ 5,72,174/- under the proviso to Section 11-A along with penalty and interest be not recovered - Another show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to show-cause to respondent No.2 as to why DBK amount to ₹ 26,08,366/- should not be allowed under Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 along with penalty and interest. This Court is not dealing with the merits of the case, as the petitioner does have an alternative remedy - In the present case, there is a remedy of appeal and the petitioner on some pretext or the other is delaying the matter. He could very well raised all grounds by filing an appeal. Recovery, which is running in crores, is pending against the petitioner. The show-cause notice can never said to be a vague show-cause notice or a show-cause notice issued by an authority not competent to issue the showcause notice. In the present case, the petitioner was served with the proper show-cause notice, he was granted an opportunity of hearing and detailed and exhaustive order has been passed by the competent authority - it is certainly true that alternative remedy is not an absolute bar, but the fact remains that the petitioner is having equal efficacious alternative remedy. The order has been passed after following the principles of natural justice and fair play, the show-cause notices were issued by the competent authority, and therefore, the question of interference by this Court, in light of alternative remedy, does not arise. This Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioner is having an alternative remedy and as the department has not been able to recover the due amount since 2004, the question of interference by this Court does not arise - petition dismissed.
|