Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

M/S ASHNOOR TEXTILES MILLS LTD AND ANOTH versus COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (ADJUDICA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


M/s Ashnoor Textiles Mills Ltd and Anoth v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudica - CM-17089-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 8532 (13 October 2006)

C.M. No.17089 of 2006 in

C.W.P. No.2161 of 2006

M/s Ashnoor Textiles Mills Ltd and Another .....Petitioners

Vs.

Commissioner of Central Excise (Adjudication) and others .....Respondents

Present:- Shri Puneet Bali, Advocate for the applicant- petitioners.

****

On July 25, 2006, the following order was passed by this Court:-

"Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate for the respondents.

* * *

It is stated on behalf of the respondents that whatever documents have been sought by the petitioners, copies thereof will be supplied, if the same have not so far been provided.

On this being done, the authorities will be free to proceed further in the matter.

Stay of passing of final adjudication order will stand vacated.

The petitioners are directed to appear before the appropriate authorities for further proceedings on 28.8.2006.

On that date, the concerned authority before proceeding for adjudication of the dispute will ensure that the documents have been supplied.

Adjourned to 12.12.2006 for arguments."

Thereafter, on an application filed by the Revenue, the order was modified in the following terms:-

"Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Central Govt. Counsel, for the applicant- respondents.

Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate and Mr. Vivek Kohli, Advocate for the petitioners.

C.W.P. No.2161 of 2006

ORDER:

We have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner for issuance of a mandamus to supply documents seized by the department before adjudication of the matter arising out of show cause notice regarding evasion of duty.

Writ petition stands adjourned for hearing with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the appropriate authorities on 28.8.2006, after recording the statement on behalf of the respondents that whatever documents were sought by the petitioners, copies thereof will be supplied, if not so far provided.

This application seeks modification/ clarification to the effect that the department may be liable to supply only seized/relied upon documents. It is further stated that range record was neither relied upon by the department nor resumed or seized from the petitioner and that range record was not traceable.

At this stage, it is not possible to record a finding on this issue. The matter is pending consideration before the adjudicating authority. Plea of the department that some record was not available, will be considered by the adjudicating authority itself, in the first instance. The effect of not supplying the said documents or non-availaibility of the said documents can be gone into at a later stage, in appropriate proceedings.

The application is disposed of accordingly." Even though the order passed by this Court is quite explicit and is in clear terms, still the petitioner has again moved an application for seeking further directions by this Court to the following extent in the proceedings pending before the adjudicating authority:- "a. All the documents prayed for by the Petitioners, including the Range records are supplied to the Petitioners by the Department.

C.W.P. No.2161 of 2006

b. The Cross Examination of the people prayed for by the Petitioner, including the expert witnesses and handwriting experts be allowed in the interest of justice.

c. The proceedings before the adjudication authority may be stayed with until the cross examination is completed and all the documents supplied."

From such an application moved by the petitioners, it is evident that the petitioners are interested in delaying the proceedings and are seeking directions to control the day to day proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer which does not fall within the jurisdiction to be exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, we find that comprehensive directions have already been issued and the consequence of their compliance/ non-compliance is also evident therefrom. This application seems to be an attempt to either seek review of the earlier order passed by this Court or to delay the proceedings. Accordingly, finding no merit, we dismiss the application.

At this stage, counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw the application. Ordered accordingly.

( RAJESH BINDAL )

JUDGE

October 12, 2006 ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL )

renu JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.