1991 (3) TMI 146 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the order of detention passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.
2. Dispute regarding the liability of Central Excise dues between different legal entities.
3. Ownership of the detained goods by the petitioners.
4. Failure of the petitioners to approach the detaining authority with factual objections before filing the writ petition.

Analysis:

The writ petition challenged the order of detention issued by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise against two petitioners for non-payment of Central Excise dues. The petitioners contended that the dues were claimed against a different legal entity and that the detained goods belonged to another petitioner. The Court noted that the petitioners did not raise these factual objections before approaching the Court directly. The Court emphasized that such objections should first be raised before the detaining authority, and interference by the Court would only be warranted if there was a demand and denial of justice. The Court highlighted that factual objections cannot be raised for the first time in Court and directed the petitioners to approach the detaining authority with their objections.

Regarding the ownership of the detained goods and the liability for Central Excise dues, the Court observed that these were questions of fact that needed to be addressed by the detaining authority. The Court stated that before invoking supervisory powers under Article 226, the petitioners must exhaust the remedies available before the detaining authority. The Court dismissed the writ petition with the direction for the petitioners to first approach the detaining authority with their objections and for the authority to dispose of the same within seven days in accordance with the law.

The Court rejected the argument to direct the Collector, Central Excise instead of the Assistant Collector, as the order of detention was issued by the latter. The Court clarified that the Collector had not made any decision regarding the ownership of the detained goods or the other contentions raised in the case. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition with the mentioned observations and did not award any costs to either party.