R K BROS Vs. CCE CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Civil Misc. application, prayer made is for dismissing C.W.P. No. 4691 of 1991 as being not maintainable because the petitioner has not exhausted the alternative remedy of appeal under the Central Excise & Customs Act.

(2.) Upon notice, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that notice under challenge being without jurisdiction, appeal is not an efficacious remedy.

(3.) Vide notice dated 28.2.1991, Collector, Central Excise called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why central excise duty amounting to Rs. 7,87,087.65 should not be demanded from it under Rule 9(2) of Central Excise Rules, 1944 read with Section 11A of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 on the ground that the petitioner has manufactured excisable goods without having applied for central excise licence. Petitioner was also called upon to show cause as to why penal action be not taken against it under Rules 9(2), 173Q and 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the contravention of aforesaid rules. Petitioner was asked to show cause as to why penalty under Rule 209A of ibid rules be not imposed upon it for purchasing, acquiring and keeping the excisable goods which the Collector has reason to believe, are liable to confiscation under Rule 173Q of the Rules. Petitioner was told to give reply within 30 days of the receipt of the notice.