1991 (3) TMI 396 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Jurisdiction of Assistant Director under Section 14 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 to issue summons for inquiry.

Detailed Analysis:

1. The petitioner sought the quashing of a summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 by the Assistant Director. The challenge was based on the lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Director, absence of specified grounds for the inquiry, and the potential harassment caused by the summons in relation to tax assessments.

2. The relevant provision, Section 14 of the Act, empowers any Central Excise Officer authorized by the Central Government to summon individuals for evidence or document production in inquiries under the Act. The summons in question indicated an inquiry into evasion of Central Excise duty by the petitioner company.

3. The definition of 'Central Excise Officer' includes officers invested with such powers by the Central Board of Excise and Customs. A notification dated 27th March, 1986, appointed officers of the Directorate of Anti-Evasion (Central Excise) as Central Excise Officers with nationwide jurisdiction.

4. The notification conferred all powers of a Central Excise Officer on the Assistant Director, enabling him to conduct inquiries and issue summons for evidence and document production. The jurisdiction of the Assistant Director was established through this notification, granting him authority to proceed under Section 14.

5. The Court rejected the contention that the Assistant Director lacked jurisdiction, emphasizing that the statutory inquiry was within his authority. The necessity to disclose inquiry material in the summons was deemed unnecessary, as the Assistant Director was empowered to conduct inquiries and issue summons under Section 14.

6. Regarding the use of documents produced by the petitioner, the Court directed that the petitioner would have access to the documents and could obtain copies as needed. The original documents would be produced before Assessing Authorities when required.

7. Noting the time elapsed since the issuance of the summons, the Court directed the Assistant Director to complete the inquiry within three months and instructed the petitioner to cooperate with the authorities. The writ petition was disposed of with these observations and directions.