Research › Browse › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

1998 DIGILAW 81 (HP)

NATHPA JHAKRI JOINT VENTURE v. UNION OF INDIA

1998-06-01

KAMLESH SHARMA, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

body1998
JUDGMENT KAMLESH SHARMA, ACTG. CJ.—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. 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. 4. So far the judgment in Manohar Bros (Capacitors) v. Collector of Customs-ll, Bombay, 1998 (98) ELT 821 (Tribunal) is concerned, that is on its own facts and its ratio has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. Learned Additional Central Government standing counsel, however, states at the bar that the enquiry by the Superintendent (Preventive), Chandigarh will be completed in two hearings on or before 1st July, 1998, provided, the petitioners co-operate in the enquiry. In view of this, it is directed that the enquiry by the Superintendent (Preventive), Chandigarh will be completed on or before 1st July, 1998. 5. So far the issue raised by the petitioners that they are not liable to pay excise duty as they are neither manufacturing nor using the Ready Mix Concrete is concerned, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to approach this Court again if they fail before the competent Authority/Appellate Authority. The writ petition is disposed of. Copy Dasti. CMPs No. 273 and 618 of 1998 In view of the disposal of the writ petition, these CMPs also stand disposed of and the interim stay order dated 12.3.1998 is vacated. Order Accordingly.