1996 (5) TMI 93 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of summons, notice, and show cause notice under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. Jurisdictional challenge regarding the show cause notice under Section 11A of the Act.
3. Allegations of contravention of provisions of the Act and Rules.
4. Extended period of limitation for the show cause notice.
5. Court's jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The petitioner, a company engaged in manufacturing scooters, sought to quash summons, notice, and a show cause notice issued by the Central Excise authorities. The petitioner argued that the summons and notice were unnecessary as the matter had been previously determined. However, the authorities issued a show cause notice demanding excise duty and cess, alleging contraventions of various provisions. The petitioner approached the High Court under Article 226 for relief.

2. The petitioner challenged the jurisdiction of the show cause notice issued under Section 11A of the Act, contending that it was beyond the six-month limitation period and that the extended period of five years was not applicable. The petitioner claimed that all required information had been provided to the authorities, and there was no intent to evade payment of excise duty. The Court noted that the allegations required factual examination by the excise authorities and declined to interfere at that stage.

3. The show cause notice alleged contraventions of Section 4 of the Act and various Rules, including non-payment of excise duty, giving false information, and evasion of duty. The Court emphasized that these were primarily factual allegations that needed to be examined by the authorities based on evidence presented. The Court stated that interfering at this stage would impede the statutory investigation process.

4. Regarding the extended period of limitation for the show cause notice, the Court held that the petitioner's arguments should be raised before the adjudicating authority. The Court noted that the lack of jurisdiction was based on the absence of specific conditions for the extended period, which required factual inquiry. Quoting a Supreme Court decision, the Court emphasized that such matters should be addressed during the inquiry process.

5. The Court rejected the petitioner's plea to entertain the petition, emphasizing that the appropriate forum for adjudicating on the allegations was the excise authority. The Court cited precedents to support its decision and directed the petitioner to avail the alternative remedy of showing cause before the relevant authority. Ultimately, the Court dismissed the petition at the admission stage, maintaining that the excise authorities should proceed with their inquiry based on the evidence presented.