Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2022 (3) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1164 - HC - Central ExciseShort paid Central Excise Duty - misdeclaration of maximum packing speed of pan masala pouch packing machines installed at petitioner's factory premises - Section 11A (4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 read with Section 174 of the Chhattisgarh Goods Service Act, 2017 - Circular dated 10.2.2015 - HELD THAT:- From the pleadings made in writ petition, it is clear that petitioner got installed different PMPMs of different MRPs at its factory premises. Main grievance raised by learned Senior Counsel for petitioner is with respect to jurisdiction of authority issuing impugned show-cause notice to petitioner. Perusal of impugned show-cause notice would show that detailed investigation has been conducted by respondent before issuing show-cause notice to petitioner. Investigation was conducted based on intelligence information. In show-cause notice, there is specific mention about difference in speed of PMPM; giving wrong information in report of Chartered Engineer regarding number of funnels in PMPM than that of number of funnels as per report of manufacturer of machines. In case of ORYX FISHERIES PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2010 (10) TMI 660 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that It is obvious that at that stage the authority issuing the charge- sheet, cannot, instead of telling him the charges, confront him with definite conclusion of his alleged guilt. If that is done, as has been done in this instant case, the entire proceeding initiated by the show cause notice gets vitiated by unfairness and bias and the subsequent proceeding become an idle ceremony - In view of above dictum of Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts of present case are considered, it would reveal that respondent conducted investigation based on intelligence information. Upon detailed investigation, as appearing in show-cause notice, it revealed that there was mis-declaration by petitioner, based upon which show-cause notice is issued to petitioner calling upon petitioner to submit reply within a particular period. Respondent has been authorized under Circular dated 10.2.2015 to issue show-cause notice. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, impugned show-cause notice cannot be stated to be issued by an authority not having jurisdiction. The respondent was having jurisdiction to issue notice as per Circular dated 10.2.2015. In impugned notice reasons for issuing show cause notice have been discussed in very detail - this writ petition at this stage is pre-mature, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
|