AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Siri Jagan, J.—The petitioner challenges Exts. P20 and P32 orders. Ext. P20 is an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT). The petitioner passed on certain information to the Central Excise authorities in respect of alleged evasion of duty by the appellant in the appeal in which Ext. P20 order was passed. Based on that, certain orders were passed by the adjudicating authority. Those orders were challenged in appeal before the CESTAT, in which Ext. P20 order has been passed. The operative portion of Ext. P20 reads thus:
All the appeals are, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the learned Commissioner is hereby set aside with a direction to make final assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the said rules for the period covered under the show cause notice in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deposit of Rs. 1 crore (Rupees one crore only) made by the assessee may be retained by the Revenue and be adjusted as per the outcome of the final assessment.
The petitioner challenged that order by filing W.P. (C). No. 15294/2006, in which a learned Single Judge of this Court passed Ext. P29 judgment, which reads thus:
Ext. P20 is an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, whereby the appeals field by the third respondent herein and others had been allowed. The final order is extracted herein below.
All the appeals are, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the learned Commissioner is hereby set aside with a direction to make final assessment under Rule 9B(5) of the said rules for the period covered under the show cause notice in accordance with law and in the light of the observations made in this judgment. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the deposit of Rs. 1 crore (Rupees one crore only) made by the assessee may be retained by the Revenue and be adjusted as per the outcome of the final assessment.
Sri. Chandrasekharan, counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that his client is aggrieved by the above order and it is within his rights to challenge the above order.
However, I find it difficult to concur with the above submission. It is admitted that he had filed an application for impleading himself in the proceedings, but the authorities had disallowed the application. The claim of the petitioner is on the basis that he was an informer whereby it had been possible for the Central Excise and Customs Department to find evasion of duty at the instance of the third respondent and therefore, he was to be recognised as a person entitled to reward of 30% of the sum so found out as having been evaded. But, evidently such enquiry has not been so far concluded. The present order requires the commission to make a final assessment. Only if ultimately it is found that there is evasion, the question of reward to the informer arises.
I am of opinion that the writ petition is premature and is not entertain-able. Reserving the rights of the petitioner to move appropriately in the matter as and when cause of action arises, the writ petition is dismissed.
The petitioner filed W.A. No. 1232/2006 against that judgment. By Ext. P30 judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the writ appeal as lacking in merit. Subsequently, by Ext. P32 order the counsel for the petitioner was informed by the Assistant Commissioner (Prev.) of the Central Excise Department that since CESTAT has set aside the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority pursuant to the information submitted by the petitioner, which the department has accepted, the question of sanctioning of reward does not arise.
As far as Ext. P20 is concerned, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same in so far as the same is between the Central Excise Authorities and the company, which is the appellant. In any event, the challenge against Exts. P20 had already been repelled by this Court in Exts. P29 and P30 judgments. What has been saved in Ext. P29 is only the right of the petitioner to seek payment of reward as and when fresh assessment order is passed as directed in Ext. P20 judgment. Such a situation has not arisen. That being so, the question of payment of reward to the petitioner does not arise. Therefore, challenge against Exts. P32, as it stands now, is also misconceived. That being so, the challenge against Exts. P20 and 32 are misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.