2005 (11) TMI 78 - HC - Central Excise

Dismissal of Writ Petition Against Central Excise Summons Upheld by Court

The court dismissed the writ petition challenging summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 to a private limited company and its ... Writ jurisdiction - Judicial review Issues: Challenge to summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 for appearance in connection with alleged fraudulent claim of CENVAT credit.Analysis:The writ petition challenged the summons issued to a private limited company and its director under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Ludhiana, and by the Directorate General of Central Excise Intelligence, Mumbai, and Commissioner of Central Excise, Preventive Wing, Ahmedabad. The petitioners contended that despite depositing the alleged fraudulent claim amount of Rs. 73.73 lacs, the revenue authorities continued to harass them with the summons. The petitioners argued that the investigations extended to Mumbai and Ahmedabad, beyond the production location at Jammu, were vindictive and aimed at harassment. They sought to quash the summons on this basis.The court found the petitioners' grievance to be misconceived at that stage. It noted the absence of material on record supporting the claim that the summons were issued due to the petitioners' complaints against the revenue authorities to the Punjab Human Rights Commission. The court emphasized that the mere issuance of summons for investigation purposes does not automatically imply a vindictive attitude by revenue officials. Without evidence of arbitrary or capricious exercise of power, the court held that it was not within the purview of judicial review to assume ulterior motives behind the summons. Since no such material was found on record, the court dismissed the writ petition for lacking merit.In conclusion, the court dismissed the writ petition as devoid of merit and upheld the validity of the summons issued under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The court directed that the petitioners would only be examined during office hours and any pending statements or investigations would be continued the following day if inconclusive.