2001 (4) TMI 99 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Validity of the show cause notice issued under the Central Excise Act.
2. Jurisdiction of the court to entertain a writ petition against the show cause notice.
3. Consideration of objections raised by the petitioner regarding the joint show cause notice.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Validity of the show cause notice
The petitioner sought a writ of certiorari to challenge a show cause notice issued under the Central Excise Act, alleging that it was without jurisdiction and illegal. The notice demanded duty for wilful suppression of facts and intent to evade excise duty. The petitioner contended that the notice was improper as it was issued not only to them but also to a third party. However, the court found that while a common notice was issued, the proceedings were individual in nature, relating to specific omissions or violations. The court held that the notice was not without jurisdiction or illegal, and the respondent had the authority to issue it.

Issue 2: Jurisdiction of the court
The court, after considering the arguments, declined to entertain the writ petition challenging the show cause notice. It stated that the petitioner could raise objections regarding the demand claimed against both the petitioner and the lessee. The court emphasized that the respondent should consider any objections raised by the petitioner. The court dismissed the writ petition but granted the petitioner liberty to raise objections specifically related to the joint demand against two licensees, including the petitioner and the lessor.

Issue 3: Consideration of objections
The court directed the petitioner to raise objections concerning the joint show cause notice, specifically addressing the demand against multiple parties. It instructed the respondent to consider these objections and, if necessary, issue separate show cause notices for each party involved. The court's decision allowed the petitioner the opportunity to challenge the joint notice and ensured that objections would be duly considered by the respondent. No costs were awarded in this matter, and a related application was also dismissed by the court.