Petitioner challenged an order of the Settlement Commission via writ petition. Court allowed adjournment for petitioner to approach Settlement Commission to present arguments and dispose of the writ.
Petitioner granted liberty to approach the adjudicating authority to file a reply within four weeks.
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 : 18.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
W.P.No.14088 of 2004
M/s.Victory Laminations Ltd., 41-43, SIDCO Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi – 601 201. Rep. By its Authorised Signatory, T.Jayaraman ..Petitioner Vs.
1.The Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Narmada Block, Customs House, Rajaji Salai, Chennai 1.
2.The Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate, MHU Complex, 473, Anna Salai, Nandanam, Chennai 600 035.
3.The Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise, Intelligence Chennai Zonal Unit, 3C Wing, 2nd Floor, Rajaji Bhavan, Besant Nagar, Chennai 90. ..Respondents
Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records comprised in Order No.15/2004CE, dated 06.04.2004, on the file of the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission, Additional Bench, Chennai-1/first respondent and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to reconsider the application dated 14.07.2003 under Section 32-E of the Central Excise Act, 1944, made by the petitioner before the first respondent.
For Petitioner : Mr.Muthu Venkataraman for M/s.R.Karthikeyan For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Panel Counsel
ORDER
The order passed by the Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission Additional Bench, Chennai in proceedings dated 06.04.2004 is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.
2.The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner fairly made a submission that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, several developments occurred with reference to the issues raised in this Writ Petition and some of the decisions of the Courts are also in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner made submission that the petitioner may be granted opportunity to adjudicate all the issues before the adjudicating authority for the purpose of redressing his grievances.
3.The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents made a submission that with reference to such disputed facts and circumstances, the adjudicating authority has to go into the documents and take a decision. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the adjudicating authority by filing an appropriate reply in the prescribed format, complying with the requirements within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and in the event of filing any such reply to the adjudicating authority and on receipt of any such reply, the adjudicating authority shall consider the same on merits, in accordance with law, take a decision and pass orders as expeditiously as possible.
4.With these directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gsa
To
W.P.No.14088 of 2004
RLD(CO) GMY(15/07/2021)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should dispose of the writ petition by remanding the matter to the adjudicating authority for reconsideration rather than deciding the merits on the records.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/s. Victory Laminations Ltd.
Customs and Central Excise Settlement Commission
Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II
Additional Director General, Directorate General of Central Excise
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
