AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Dr. Dhananjay Chandrachud, learned Counsel for the petitioner; Shri B.G. Neema, learned Counsel for the Union of India, on being supplied an advance copy, heard on the question of admission.
This is a petition for quashing an order passed by the Collector, Central Excise and Customs, Indore. Admittedly, the order is appealable under the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 before the Customs Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal. Dr. Chandrachud, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the show cause notice itself was without jurisdiction as it was patently issued beyond limitation prescribed by Section 11A of the Act. According to him no particulars of any suppression of facts or any other fraud have been set out in the show cause notice and, therefore, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Tata Iron and Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India 1988 (35) E.L.T : 1989 (17) ECR 401 (SC) : ECR C 1702 SC this Court should interfere. Dr. Chandrachud also placed reliance on a decision of this Court in 1990 (27) ECC 115
Having gone through the record and having heard the learned Counsel, we are of the opinion that this petition does not deserve to be entertained. In the cases cited before us, the petitioner had approached the Court at the show cause notice stage. After having persuaded the remedy under the statute up to the stage of passing of an appealable order, the petitioner cannot be allowed to fall back on the invalidity of the show cause notice for maintaining the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has chosen to opt for the remedy provided by the statute till the stage of passing of the order of the Collector, when he has an equally efficacious remedy of appeal before the CEGAT, it would not be proper to entertain this petition. We, therefore, decline to entertain the petition. It is accordingly dismissed without notice to the other side.