9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1149X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eliefs; "(i) Call for the records leading to the issuance of Ext.P20 of the 2nd respondent and Ext.P32 of the 1st respondent and issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondents 1 to 3 that Ext.P20 will not stand against the recovery of evaded excise duty admittedly to the tune of Rs. 11.03 crores with the 3rd respondent from March, 1995 to August 1999 together with the interest and penalty etc. till its final realisation and hence Ext.P20 and P32 are void and liable to be set aside and quashed. (ii) to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Ext.P20 and P32. (iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ured in the company. According to the petitioner, it is pursuant to the said information that the Excise Department had conducted enquiry and taken appropriate steps in the matter. However, petitioner was dissatisfied with the orders passed by CESTAT in so far as according to him, the entire evasion has not been brought to the notice of the authorities concerned and the enquiry was not satisfactory. 3. Learned Single Judge while considering the writ petition observed that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge Ext.P20 and Ext.P32 orders as it was between the Excise Department and the company involved in the alleged violation. In regard to the claim of the petitioner for payment of award amount, no directions were issued by the lea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the department regarding the evasion and on that basis enquiry had been conducted. Once the information had been given and the respondent authorities have proceeded with the enquiry, thereafter, the petitioner cannot have a say in the matter nor can the petitioner challenge the orders passed by the CESTAT or other competent authorities. In that view of the matter, the learned Single Judge was justified in forming an opinion that the petitioner has no locus standi in the matter. 7. As far as the reward is concerned, the Committee had gone into the claim of the petitioner and Annexure R1(a) minutes produced by the respondent authorities clearly indicates that the entire factual circumstances involved in the matter including the fact that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
