TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court directs document supply, dismisses modification request, denies additional directions. Limited jurisdiction reiterated. Application withdrawn.</h1> <h3>ASHNOOR TEXTILES MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. (ADJUDICATION)</h3> ASHNOOR TEXTILES MILLS LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF C. EX. (ADJUDICATION) - 2007 (207) E.L.T. 179 (P & H) Issues:1. Supply of documents by the respondents to the petitioners.2. Modification/clarification regarding the documents to be supplied by the department.3. Further directions sought by the petitioners before the adjudicating authority.4. Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.5. Dismissal of the application seeking further directions.Analysis:Issue 1: Supply of documents by the respondents to the petitionersThe initial order passed by the Court directed the respondents to supply the documents sought by the petitioners before proceeding further in the matter. The stay of passing the final adjudication order was vacated, and the petitioners were asked to appear before the authorities for further proceedings on a specified date. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring that the documents had been supplied before adjudication of the dispute.Issue 2: Modification/clarification regarding the documents to be supplied by the departmentUpon an application by the Revenue, seeking modification/clarification of the order, the Court considered the request. The department contended that they may only be required to supply seized/relied upon documents and not the entire range record. The Court noted that the matter was pending consideration before the adjudicating authority and that the issue of non-availability of certain documents would be addressed by the adjudicating authority itself.Issue 3: Further directions sought by the petitioners before the adjudicating authorityThe petitioners moved an application seeking additional directions, including the supply of all documents, permission for cross-examination of witnesses, and a stay on proceedings until completion of cross-examination. The Court observed that the petitioners appeared to be interested in delaying the proceedings and seeking control over the adjudication process, which was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.Issue 4: Jurisdiction of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of IndiaThe Court reiterated that the jurisdiction under Article 226 did not extend to controlling day-to-day proceedings before the Adjudicating Officer. The Court found the application to be an attempt to review the earlier order or delay the proceedings and, therefore, dismissed the application for further directions.Issue 5: Dismissal of the application seeking further directionsAfter hearing the counsels for the parties, the Court concluded that comprehensive directions had already been issued, and the application seemed to be an attempt to review the earlier order or delay the proceedings. Consequently, the Court found no merit in the application and dismissed it. The counsels for the petitioners sought permission to withdraw the application, which was granted by the Court.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
