CENTURY NF CASTINGS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, a company duly incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, is carrying on the business of manufacture of Aluminium and Zinc based Alloy Ingots, with its registered office at Calcutta. The petitioner is registered under the Central Excise Act. The petitioner had purchased Aluminium Scrap from M/s. Multi Metal Udyog and Silocon metal from M/s. R.R. Metal during the period 1.10.1999 to 31.3.2000. According to the petitioner he had paid the custom duty as also countervailing duty in lieu of Central Excise Duty thereon which amounted to Rs. 4,02,28,287.00. According to the petitioner he had paid the duty payable under Section 29 of the Central Excise Duty Rules, 1944. After availing of modvat credit of the duty Central Excise paid on the inputs, the petitioner claims to have paid further Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 10,62,50,611/- on the finished goods during the said period.

(2.) ON 24.4.2000 a notice to show cause was issued by the office of the Superintendent of Central Excise Range No. 9, Faridabad. It was stated in the notice that the petitioner appears to have contravened the provisions of Rule 57-G of the Rules as they availed of Modvat Credit on the basis of the bills of entry which were not in their name but were in the name of M/s. Multi Metal Udyog, Faridabad. The petitioners were called upon to submit reply to the show cause notice within 30 days of the receipt of this notice. The department proposed to disallow the modvat credit amount and recover the same in accordance with law while further imposing a penalty under Section 57-I read with Rule 173Q of the said rules. The details of the documents were mentioned in the notice and necessary documents were annexed to the show cause notice.

(3.) THE cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner hardly have any bearing on the facts of the present case. In those cases the Hon'ble Apex Court came to a conclusion on interpretation of the relevant laws that the executive authority was acting totally without jurisdiction. In the case of East India Commercial Company Ltd. (supra) the Court was concerned with a notice issued for confiscation of goods in terms of a licence to import granted under the Imports and Excise Control Act. Their Lordships said that a writ would lie against show cause notice as it was not a breach of the statute of the rules, but allegedly one of the terms of the licence. Certainly that is not the case here. We are unable to hold that in issuing the show cause notice under the exercise rules disallowing a particular benefit, which the petitioner had taken under the same rules, that the officer has proceeded without jurisdiction or in excess of jurisdiction or contrary to law i.e. the Excise Act and the Rules. This is a matter which squarely falls within the realm of the authorities concerned and they necessarily must answer the question raised by the petitioners in reply to the show cause notice. We do not find any merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same at this stage as pre-mature. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.