2009 (1) TMI 460 - HC - Central Excise

Dismissal of Petitioner's Challenge on Reward Entitlement and Duty Evasion Deemed Premature

The High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge against orders Ext. P20 and P32, ruling that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge Ext. P20 ... Reward to informer - 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. The petitioner challenges Exts. P20 and P32 orders. Ext. P20 is an order of Tribunal. Held that – petitioner having no locus standi to challenge the order of Tribunal in so far as same between Central Excise Authorities and the company. Tribunal order already upheld by the High Court. No situation of payment of reward in case of fresh assessment order, as directed by Tribunal. Petition dismissed. Issues: Challenge to orders Ext. P20 and P32, locus standi to challenge Ext. P20, entitlement to reward for providing information on duty evasion, premature writ petition, dismissal of writ petition against Ext. P20 and P32.The petitioner challenged orders Ext. P20 and P32, with Ext. P20 being an order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) setting aside the adjudicating authority's order based on information provided by the petitioner regarding duty evasion. A learned Single Judge judgment (Ext. P29) acknowledged the petitioner's right to seek a reward upon final assessment. However, the High Court dismissed the writ petition as premature, stating that the petitioner's claim for reward was premature since the evasion inquiry was ongoing, and reward entitlement would only arise if evasion was confirmed.The petitioner's appeal against the above judgment in W.A. No. 1232/2006 was dismissed by the Division Bench in Ext. P30, upholding the earlier decision. Subsequently, Ext. P32 informed the petitioner that the Central Excise Department would not sanction a reward as the CESTAT had set aside the original order based on the petitioner's information. The High Court held that the petitioner lacked standing to challenge Ext. P20, as it concerned the Central Excise Authorities and the company, and previous judgments had rejected challenges against Ext. P20. The court concluded that the petitioner's challenge against Ext. P32 was also misconceived, as the conditions for reward payment had not yet materialized, leading to the dismissal of the writ petition.---