2009 (10) TMI 105 - HC - Central Excise

Commissioner Central Excise's Jurisdiction Upheld, Investigation Legitimate

RAPTI COMMISSIONS AGENCY Versus UNION OF INDIA

The court upheld the jurisdiction of the Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut to issue summons, deemed the ongoing investigation and summons legitimate, ... Enquiry and investigation – summons – adjudication versus investigation – summons versus order - All these writ petitions have been filed by petitioners and therein following identical reliefs have been claimed for, that is (a) Issue a writ of prohibition or writ, order or direction in the nature of prohibition, prohibiting the respondents to continue with the proceedings initiated under Section 1/1 of the Central Excise Act and not to summon the petitioners for appearance – Held that writ of prohibition to be issued only in rarest of rare cases – contingency to invoke such power absent – writ pf prohibition cannot be issued to prevent the authority from performing lawful action in lawful manner – Held that commissioner have authority to summon any person, whether situated in his territorial jurisdiction or not, once inquiry commences within his jurisdiction – Commissioner having full authority and jurisdiction to make inquiry as per notification in respect of district where factory located - commissioner having jurisdiction to summon petitioner in present case - Inquiry which is being undertaken is to be brought to its logical end and in order to facilitate conclusion of said inquiry once action is being taken under Section 14 of the Act then qua the same no fault can be found. - Adjudication cannot be compared with investigation. – summons issued is an intimation requiring person to appear to give evidence and produce some documents – Summons not an order deciding any question or communicating decision taken - petitions lack substance and are dismissed accordingly. Issues Involved:1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut to issue summons under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act.2. Legitimacy of the ongoing investigation and summons issued.3. Request for return of documents and properties seized.4. Request for initiation of proceedings under Section 22 of the Central Excise Act against the officers of the Excise Department.5. Claims of harassment and misuse of statutory provisions by the authorities.Detailed Analysis:1. Jurisdiction of the Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut:The petitioners argued that the Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut lacked jurisdiction to summon them as they did not fall within his territorial jurisdiction. However, the court noted that the inquiry was initiated by the Central Excise Officers of Meerut at the factory of M/s. Arora Aromatics in Moradabad, which falls under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner, Central Excise, Meerut as per Notification No. 66/2001-C.E. (N.T.), dated 13-11-2001. The court clarified that once an inquiry is initiated in a district within the Commissioner's jurisdiction, he has the authority to summon any person for evidence, irrespective of their location. Thus, the Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut had full authority to summon the petitioners.2. Legitimacy of the Ongoing Investigation and Summons Issued:The court emphasized that under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, any Central Excise Officer duly empowered by the Central Government has the power to summon any person necessary for an inquiry. The petitioners were summoned to cooperate in the investigation of fraudulent availing and utilization of Cenvat credit by M/s. Arora Aromatics. The court stated that the summons were not orders but mere intimations requiring appearance for giving evidence or producing documents. As the investigation was ongoing and no liability had been fastened yet, the court found no misuse of authority and held that the summons were legitimate.3. Request for Return of Documents and Properties Seized:The petitioners requested the return of documents and properties seized during the investigation. The court denied this request, stating that the investigation was still ongoing and had not yet concluded. The seized documents and properties were necessary for the investigation, and thus, there was no scope for interference at this stage.4. Request for Initiation of Proceedings under Section 22 of the Central Excise Act:The petitioners sought proceedings against the officers of the Excise Department under Section 22 of the Central Excise Act, alleging harassment. The court dismissed this request, reiterating that the investigation was ongoing and that the actions taken by the officers were within their lawful authority and jurisdiction. There was no evidence of misuse of power that would warrant such proceedings.5. Claims of Harassment and Misuse of Statutory Provisions:The petitioners claimed that the continuous summons and searches constituted harassment and misuse of statutory provisions. The court found these claims unsubstantiated, noting that the summons were part of a legitimate investigation into serious allegations of fraudulent Cenvat credit availing and utilization. The court highlighted that the petitioners had not cooperated with the investigation, which justified the repeated summons. The court concluded that the actions of the authorities were lawful and necessary for the investigation.Conclusion:The court dismissed all three writ petitions, holding that the Commissioner Central Excise, Meerut had the jurisdiction to issue summons, the ongoing investigation and summons were legitimate, and there was no basis for returning the seized documents or initiating proceedings against the officers. The court found no evidence of harassment or misuse of statutory provisions, and thus, the petitions lacked substance. No orders as to cost were made.