MadrAS High Court disposed of writ petitions where the petitioner challenged imposition of excise duty without prior investigation into the identity of yarn suppliers, holding such factual disputes require adjudication by competent authorities.
All writ petitions disposed of; liberty given to submit explanations to the competent authority.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.01.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.Nos.36642 to 36646 of 2006 and M.P.Nos. 1,1,1,1 of 2006
Tirupur Sri Senthil Cotton Mills Limited, Rep by its Chairman & Managing Director, Shri.A.P. Velusami S.F. No.302. Andipalayam, Mangalam Road, Tirupur 641 687.
..Petitioners in writ petitions 36642 to 36644/06 Mr.A.P.Velusami .. Petitioner in 36645 & 36646/06 Vs 1. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), 6/7, ATD Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. 2. The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise, 6/7, ATD Street, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 018. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupur Division, Kumaran Shopping Complex, 1st Floor, Tirupur – 641 601. ..Respondents in all writ petitions
PRAYER in W.P.No.36642 of 2006: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writs of Mandamus, for directing the officers of the respondents and their counter parts operating within the territory of India to conduct the investigation and ascertain the identity of manufacturer who manufactured the yarn supplied by M/s.Raj Traders, Surat to the petitioner and to recover the excise duty evaded jointly and severally from the identified manufacturer and the registered dealer namely M/s.Raj Traders, Surat.
PRAYER in W.P.No.36643 of 2006 : Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned common Miscellaneous Order-In-Appeal No.2/2006-Cx. Dated 27.06.2006 of the 1st respondent herein and quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to dispose the respective Appeal Nos.53/2006-Cx. and 54/2006-Cx. on merits without insisting on
pre-deposit of duty and penalty and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
PRAYER in W.P.No.36644 of 2006: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writs of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned common Order-In-Appeal Nos.83 & 84/2006-Cx. Dated 01.08.2006of the 1st respondent herein quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
PRAYER in W.P.No.36645 of 2006: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writs of Certiorari, to call for the records of the impugned common Order-In-Appeal Nos.83 & 84/2006-Cx. Dated 01.08.2006 of the 1st respondent herein quash the same and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
PRAYER in W.P.No.36646 of 2006: Writ Petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue Writs of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records of the impugned common Order-In-Appeal No.2/2006-Cx. Dated 27.06.2006 of the 1st respondent herein quash the same and to direct the 1st respondent to dis[pose the respective Appeal Nos. 53/2006-Cx. And 54/2006Cx. On merits without insisting on pre-deposit of duty and penalty and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
These writ petitions are filed questioning the actions of the Commissioner of Central Exercise on the ground that the Commissioner had felt to investigate and ascertain the identity of manufacturer, who manufacture the yarn supplied by M/s.Raj Traders at Surat.
M/s.Raj Traders, who supplied yarn for manufacturing of the goods and the Commissioner had failed to conduct any investigation in this regard to ascertain the genuinity and the identity of the supplier of yarn to the writ petitioner.
Assistant Registrar (CS-III) //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kak/kmm
To
SSD(CO) GN(01/03/2019)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the writ court can adjudicate disputed facts regarding identity of yarn manufacturer and recovery of excise duty under Article 226.
Tirupur Sri Senthil Cotton Mills Limited
The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals)
The Additional Commissioner of Central Excise
The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirupur Division
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
