DHARMAPAL SATYAPAL LTD. Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Dr. A.K. Saraf, learned senior counsel, for the petitioner, and Mr. R. Dubey, learned Standing Counsel, Central Excise Department, appearing on behalf of the respondents. The subject -matter of controversy, raised in the present writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is substantially covered by the decision of a Single Bench of this Court in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. & others v. Union of India & Ors., reported in : 2010(1) GLT 744. The said decision, rendered by the Single Bench, has been upheld and affirmed by the judgment and order, dated 19 -01 -2012, passed, in WA Nos. 392/2010 and 395/2010, by a Division Bench of this Court.

(2.) BEFORE reverting to the decision rendered in the case of Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. (supra), it may be pointed out that the present writ petition has been filed putting to challenge as many as 4 (four) numbers of certificates/reports, dated 31 -12 -2012, issued by the Commissioner of Central Excise, based on the decision of the Investment Appraisal Committee (in short, "IAC") indicating to the effect that the IAC has reached a finding that the petitioner company's claim for an amount of Rs. 18,66,86,576.29 is inadmissible as investment. The petitioner alleges that while reaching the finding that its claim for the said sum of Rs. 18,66,86,576.29 is inadmissible as investment, the IAC has not assigned reasons. This apart, neither any notice to show cause was given to the petitioner company nor was the petitioner company given any opportunity to have their say, in the matter, by the IAC before the IAC arrived at the said finding and rejected the petitioner company's claim for treating the said sum of Rs. 18,66,86,576.29 as investment made by the petitioner company within the meaning of the relevant scheme.

(3.) THE respondents have filed an affidavit resisting the writ petition, wherein they have contended to the effect, inter alia, that the investment, which have been disallowed by the IAC, were not treatable as investments within the Scheme, which provides for such investments to be exempted from payment of excise duty. The respondents further contend that no opportunity of showing cause or hearing was necessary to be accorded to the petitioner company before its claim for investments, having been made under the relevant scheme, were disallowed by the IAC.