NATHPA JHAKRI JOINT VENTURE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Whether the petitioners are manufacturing and using Ready Mix Concrete and are liable to pay excise duty, enquiry under Section 14 of the Central Excises Act was started by Superintendent (Preventive), Central Excise, Chandigarh on 11.1.1998 and the petitioners had supplied information and appeard before the said Authority whenever they are asked for; The Superintendent (Preventive), Shimla has also given notice dated 29.1,1998 to appear before him on 27.2.1998 and supply information in respect of the same matter. However, when it was pointed out by the petitioners that the Superintendent (Preventive), Chandigarh is seized of the matter, the Asstt. Commissioner (Preventive) explained in his letter dated 11,2.1998 that the petitioners need not produce the desired information before the Superintendent (Preventive), Shimla and should produce ; the record before the Superintendent (Preventive), Chandigarh only. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have also placed on record a copy of letter dated 22.2.1998 addressed to Asstt. Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Shimla by Addl. Commissioner (Preventive), Chandigarh that he should not issue the summons to the petitioners as the matter is being enquired at Headquarters Officer i.e. at Chandigarh.

(2.) In these facts and circumstances on record we do not find any substance in the submission of the petitioners that the Superintendent (Preventive), Shimla should hold the enquiry in the matter as they are working within the jurisdiction of Himachal Pradesh. The Superintendent (Preventive), Shimla may not have concurrent jurisdiction but once the enquiry had been started by the Superintendent (Preventive), Chandigarh, it was not proper for the Superintendent (Preventive), Shimla to give notice dated 29.1.1998 (Annexure P -3), which position has now been clarified by the orders of the higher Authorities. It is pointed out that the Asstt. Commissioner (Preventive), Chandigarh has overall jurisdiction over the area of Collectorate at Chandigarh including Division at Shimla under whose supervision the Superintendent (Preventive) at Chandigarh is functioning.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners states that as per the definition of the Proper Officer given in Rule 2(xi) of the Central Excise Rules the Superintendent (Preventive), Shimla has the jurisdiction to hold enquiry. Since the present enquiry is being conducted under the supervision of Asstt. Commissioner (Preventive), Chandigarh, whereas, there is no Asstt. Commissioner (Preventive) at Shimla and Superintendent (Preventive), Chandigarh is already seized of the matter, it will be legal, valid and proper if the enquiry is held by Superintendent (Preventive), Chandigarh and not Superintendent (Preventive), Shimla.