1997 (2) TMI 131 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashment of show cause notices under Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
2. Jurisdiction of High Court under Articles 226/227 and 265 of the Constitution of India
3. Discrimination in taxation compared to other companies
4. Authority to determine excise duty and classification of goods
5. Applicability of writ jurisdiction in the matter

Analysis:
The judgment by N.K. Jain, J. of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore dealt with three Misc. Petitions filed by the same petitioner seeking quashment of show cause notices under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner, a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, challenged the jurisdiction of the notices issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, MOR-IV, Indore. The petitioner alleged discrimination in taxation compared to other companies like Remington and Godrej. The respondents contended that the appropriate authority should first be approached to contest the notices and determine the excise duty due. The Court noted that statutory provisions allowed for appeals against such decisions, indicating that resorting to writ jurisdiction was not permissible.

The Court cited the case of Labhchand where it was held that when a statutory forum exists for redressal of grievances, the High Court should not entertain petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment emphasized that revenue authorities are better suited to determine the classification of goods, especially in technical matters, as seen in the case of P. Kesavan. The Court highlighted that the authorities competent to deal with such matters should be allowed to do so. Consequently, the Court disposed of the petitions with directions for the petitioners to reply to the notices within 30 days, raise jurisdictional and discrimination pleas, apply for permission to lead evidence, and seek remedies available in law in case of adverse decisions.

In conclusion, the Court disposed of all petitions without costs, directing the refund of any security amount. The order was to be retained in one petition and copies placed in the other two. The judgment clarified the limitations of writ jurisdiction in matters where statutory remedies and competent authorities exist for redressal, particularly in issues related to excise duty determination and classification of goods.