At, Before the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUDHAKAR
For the Petitioner: P. Radhakrishnan, Advocate. For the Respondents: R1, R2, Vijay Karthikeyan, Senior Standing Counsel Customs & Central Excise.
(Prayer in both writ petitions: Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a writ of Certiorari to call for the records in C.No.V/52/15/12/2008 Adjn dated 11.07.2008 and 21.07.2008 respectively on the file of the first respondent and quash the same.)
1. These writ petitions have been filed challenging the show cause notice issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Dindigul Division, in C.No.V/52/15/12/2008 Adjn dated 11.07.2008 and 21.07.2008 respectively.
2. The show cause notice is issued to the petitioners demanding the duty amount of Rs.97,76,976/- (Rupees Ninety Seven Lakhs Seventy Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Seventy Six only) in W.P.(MD)No.8104 of 2008 and Rs.3,12,23,901/- (Rupees Three Crores Twelve Lakhs Twenty Three Thousand Nine Hundred and One only) in W.P(MD)No.8105 of 2008, respectively.
3. On perusal of the grounds raised in the writ petitions, I find that many of the grounds are raised on factual aspects of the case with regard to the utilisation of the duty free indigenous capital goods. The petitioner also relies upon various documents in support of the plea that they are not liable to pay the duty demanded.
4. At the outset, this Court is not inclined to go into various factual aspects of the case as several grounds are on disputed questions of facts.
5. I do not want to refer to various grounds as it is evident from going through the same that the petitioners are raising one or other plea, as a matter of fact, disputing facts. Hence, this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to go into the factual disputes raised by the petitioner and decide the matter one way or the other. Since there is an effective alternative remedy under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, the writ petitions by-passing the alternative remedy are misconceived.
6. Further, the learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that all the issues raised are factual disputes and they are inclined to give a fresh reply to the impugned show cause notice and this Court may grant permission to submit the reply.
7. Therefore, both the writ petitions are dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to file a reply to the show ca
Please Login To View The Full Judgment!
use notice and pursue the same. The petitioner is granted further time of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, to submit the reply to the show cause notice. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petitions are dismissed. No costs.