TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 279X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p S. Jetly, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.B. Mishra, Advocates for the Respondents in both the writ petitions. (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ORAL ORDER (Per Abhay Ahuja,J.): Heard. Since the two petitions involve similar facts and issues and the counsel in Writ Petition No.2540 of 2020 in the case of Amit Pramod Minache Vs. Union of India and Others has submitted that he will adopt the arguments of the counsel in Writ Petition No.2539 of 2020, we are disposing of both the petitions by this order. For the sake of convenience, we will advert to the facts in Writ Petition No. 2539 of 2020 in the case of Raju Laxman Pachhapure. 2. The Petitioner has filed this Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for the following reliefs: (a) This Hon ble Court be pleased to declare that the provisions of Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity, Determination and Collection of Duty) Rules, 2008 (the Pan Masala Rules ) is ultra vires the provisions of Section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and is unconstitutional; (b) This Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other approp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufactured by the petitioner were recovered at the shop of Balaji Supari Centre. Panchanamas dated 15.9.2014, 16.9.2014, 19.8.2015 and 20.8.2015 were drawn up with respect to the recoveries thus made, which panchanamas along with other information were forwarded to the office of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd Respondent after carrying out investigation, recorded statements, obtained further necessary information and on conclusion of the investigation, issued a show cause notice dated 4.4.2018 ( SCN ) to the petitioners demanding the payment of excise duty from the petitioners, jointly and severally for the period February, 2013 to September, 2014 and from April, 2015 to August, 2015 under the provisions of Rule 17(2) of the Pan Masala Rules read with section 3A of the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. Petitioner replied to the SCN vide reply dated 10.7.2019, where a specific request for cross examination of the FDA Officers and the police officers who had drawn the above referred panchanamas was made, which was rejected by the 2nd respondent vide its letter dated 15.7.2019. 5. Petitioner submits that parallel criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under the F ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o submit that the petitioners should be permitted to cross examine the persons whose names are contained therein. He has taken us through the request of the petitioner dated 10.7.2019 where the demand for cross examination of some witnesses, panchas, Food Safety Officers and Police Officers were made and for issuance of summons to the witnesses for their examination. He has also taken us through the letter dated 15.7.2019 rejecting the petitioner s request for seeking cross examination. He submits that the 2nd respondent had gone ahead and passed the impugned order in original dated 21.8.2019 without allowing the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses even though the said order has set out in detail the contentions with respect to the petitioners said request and despite the petitioners request vide letter dated 31.7.2019 to adjourn the personal hearing by a month for allowing the petitioner to file appeal before the tribunal against the respondents decision rejecting the petitioner s request to cross examine witnesses. Dr. Kantawalla submits that the impugned order in original is also bad in as much as no personal hearing was granted to the petitioner and relies upon paragrap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this court, Mr. Jetly would submit that the same is untenable as the right of appeal is a statutory right and not an absolute right and can be circumscribed by the conditions in the grant. He would also submit that all the contentions and grounds taken up by the petitioners in the writ petitions can be taken up by them in the appeal provided under the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act ) and therefore, these petitions ought to be dismissed. Consideration By Court- 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties for some time and also having perused the papers and proceedings, we are not persuaded to invoke our writ jurisdiction at this stage. We are of the considered opinion that the alternative remedy of appeal is efficacious and the reason given for not invoking the same i.e. pre-deposit being burdensome does not appeal to us. Accordingly, we relegate the petitioners to the remedy available under the CGST Act by way of appeal. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 SC 603, where the Hon ble Supreme Court observed as und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
