Skip to content


indo French Time Industries Ltd. and anr. Vs. the Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtMumbai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Petition No. 747 of 1979
Judge
Reported in1989(20)LC55(Bombay)
Appellantindo French Time Industries Ltd. and anr.
RespondentThe Union of India (Uoi) and ors.
Excerpt:
alternate remedy - s.c. notice defective--objections to be raised before departmental authorities. ce rule 10. - code of criminal procedure, 1973 [c.a. no. 2/1974]. section 41: [ swatanter kumar, cj, smt ranjana desai & d.b. bhosale, jj] arrest of accused - held, a police officer or a person empowered to arrest may arrest a person without intervention of the court subject to the limitations specified under the provisions of the code. the provisions of section 41 of the code provides for arrest by a police officer without an order from a magistrate and without a warrant. a distinct and different power under section 44 of the code empowers the magistrate to arrest or order any person to arrest the offender. under section 44 of the code, that power is vested in the court of the magistrate..........seeking various reliefs. the petitioners sought the declaration that amendment to section 4 of the central excises and salt act, 1944, and in particular the words 'buyer is not a related person' in clause (a) of sub-section (i) of section 4 are ultra vires of the constitution and for an injunction restraining the respondents from applying the provisions of the said amended section to the first petitioner. the petitioners also challenge the various actions taken by the officers of the central excise and their orders, copies of which are annexed as exhibits 'f' and 'h' to 'k' and 'm' to the petitioners-the petitioners also challenge the show-cause notice issued by the superintendent of central excise on march 20, 1979.2. it is not necessary to set out the claim of the petitioners because.....
Judgment:

Pendse, J.

1. The petitioners filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on April 3, 1979 seeking various reliefs. The petitioners sought the declaration that amendment to Section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and in particular the words 'buyer is not a related person' in Clause (a) of Sub-section (I) of Section 4 are ultra vires of the constitution and for an injunction restraining the respondents from applying the provisions of the said amended Section to the first petitioner. The petitioners also challenge the various actions taken by the officers of the Central Excise and their orders, copies of which are annexed as Exhibits 'F' and 'H' to 'K' and 'M' to the petitioners-The petitioners also challenge the show-cause notice issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise on March 20, 1979.

2. It is not necessary to set out the claim of the petitioners because after some arguments at the bar, Shri Kana, learned Counsel appearing in support of the petition very fairly stated that the question about the validity of amended Section 4 of the Central Excise Act and the liability of the petitioners in respect of post manufacturing expenses stands concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 1983 E.L.T. 1896 : 1983 ECR 1627 (Union of India and Ors. v. Bombay Tyre International

3. The only contention which survives consideration is the challenge of the petitioners to the issuance of show-cause notice dated March 20,1979. In my judgment, it is not necessary to ascertain the challenge to the show-cause notice at this juncture The petitioners grievance is that the show-cause notice is issued inspite of the fact that the earlier show-cause notice dated November 29, 1977 was withdrawn by the order dated July 18, 1978 when the petitioners pointed out the correct facts. The petitioners claim that the impugned show-cause notice was without jurisdiction and uncalled for. In my judgment, it is not necessary to determine this contention at this juncture. The proper course for the petitioners would be to raise all these objections before the Superintendent who will decide the claim of the petitioners in answer to the show cause notice. Shri Dalai, learned Counsel appearing for the Department, assures that the show cause notice dated March 20, 1979 would be decided within a period of three months from to-day. Shri Rana states that the petitioners would file additional material, if any, within a period of two weeks from to-day before the concerned Superintendent and thereafter the Superintendent of Central Excise, should decide the show cause notice within a period of three months from to-day. The Bank Guarantees furnished by the petitioners in accordance with the interim order passed by this Court should be kept alive by the petitioners for a period of four months from to-day. The Superintendent shall decide the show cause notice and also determine the price list filed by the petitioners. The Superintendent, Central Excise, even if the order passed is adverse to the petitioners, shall not enforce the Bank Guarantees for a period of one month from the date of the order.

4. Rule is accordingly discharged subject to the directions given hereinabove. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //