TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 327
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the petitioner No.1 is that the conversion of vehicles into ambulances is not manufacturing and, therefore, no excise duty is payable. It is stated that the petitioner No.1 has an office at N-114, Panchsheel Park, New Delhi and is registered with the service tax authorities in Delhi and the centralized registration for service tax was granted vide certificate of registration dated 28th April, 2008. 4. In the writ petition, the following prayers have been made:- "(i) to issue writ of certiorari of other appropriate writ to quahs the illegal Search Warrant, Seizure, Memo, Panchnama/Superdaginama, Summons, Statements, Orders, Directions, Registration Certificates, Letters etc issued by the Respondents No.1 to 4 and declared the same to be unconstitutional without jurisdiction, without justification, violative or natural justice and arbitrary as well as discriminatory and hence liable to be quashed and declared non est in law. (ii) to issue writ of prohibition or other appropriate writ restraining the respondents from discriminating the Petitioners from discriminating the Petitioners arbitrarily, irrationally and unjustifiably for a hostile treatment wholly unauthorized by law a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d vehicles were subsequently released on conditions/payment. Statement of employees/directors of the petitioner No.1 company was recorded and Manu Jain, a director of the company was arrested. 6. In the writ petition various factual details of how the matter has proceeded and the respective stands of the petitioner No.1 and Excise Department have been stated. 7. The whole edifice of the case built by the petitioner No.1 is that the process of conversion of the base vehicle unit, on which excise duty has already been paid, into ambulances equipped with requisite medical appliances, fittings etc. does not amount to manufacture and, therefore, no central excise duty is payable. It is submitted that the petitioner is undertaking an activity which is classified as service and, therefore, the entire action including search operations and proceedings thereafter are illegal. 8. On the other hand, the case of the respondent is that the base vehicles are classified as goods delivery vans under CETSH 8704 2190 and the ambulances after fabrication or conversion are classified under CETSH 8703 3392 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. They rely upon Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pany are also located at Faridabad. However, the case made by the petitioner No.1 is that they have office at Delhi and the billing is done from Delhi. It is noticed that in the writ petition it has been stated that the respondent Nos.1 to 4 function under the supervision of the Chief Commissioner, Central Excise, C.R. Building, I.P. Estate, New Delhi and the petitioner No.1 had approached the said authority. This, by itself, may not confer jurisdiction on this Court to entertain this writ petition, unless there was involvement and their role is material and a part of cause of action. However, since the writ petition has been pending since 2010, we are not inclined to examine this aspect in further detail. The respondents are, though, not precluded from raising the issue of jurisdiction if the petitioners come again by way of writ petition to this Court. 11. The Supreme Court in Whirpool Corporation vs. Registrar of Trade Marks (1998) 8 SCC 1 has held that the remedy of writ may be resorted to where the order or proceedings have been wholly without jurisdiction. In Union of India vs. Hindalco Industries, (2003) 5 SCC 194, the Supreme Court has cautioned that it is not for the High....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....initially decide the matter and ensure that ultimate relief which may or may not be finally granted in the writ petition is not accorded to the writ petitioner even at the threshold by the interim protection granted." 13. In U.P. State Spg. Co. Ltd. v. R.S. Pandey, (2005) 8 SCC 264, it has been explained that the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless something in the case goes to the root of the jurisdiction. When and in what circumstances writ jurisdiction should be exercised at the initial stage was examined and it was held as follows:- "17. Where under a statute there is an allegation of infringement of fundamental rights or when on the undisputed facts the taxing authorities are shown to have assumed jurisdiction which they do not possess can be the grounds on which the writ petitions can be entertained. But normally, the High Court should not entertain writ petitions unless it is shown that there is something more in a case, something going to the root of the jurisdiction of the officer, something which would show that it would be a case of palpable injustice to the writ petitioner to force him to adopt the remedies provided by the statute. It was noted by th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... State Bridge Corpn. Ltd. v. U.P. Rajya Setu Nigam S. Karamchari Sangh it was held that when the dispute relates to enforcement of a right or obligation under the statute and specific remedy is, therefore, provided under the statute, the High Court should not deviate from the general view and interfere under Article 226 except when a very strong case is made out for making a departure. The person who insists upon such remedy can avail of the process as provided under the statute. To same effect are the decisions in.....". 14. In another case, Union of India v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28, the Supreme court has held: "13. It is well settled by a series of decisions of this Court that ordinarily no writ lies against a charge-sheet or show-cause notice vide Executive Engineer, Bihar State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh, Special Director v. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse, Ulagappa v. Divisional Commr., Mysore, State of U.P. v. Brahm Datt Sharma, etc. 14. The reason why ordinarily a writ petition should not be entertained against a mere show-cause notice or charge-sheet is that at that stage the writ petition may be held to be premature. A mere charge-sheet or show-ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iscal law. Commenting on the exercise of wide jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, subject to self-imposed limitation, this Court went on to explain: "7. ... The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief. Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up." (emphasis added) The decision in Thansingh is still holding the field. 34. Again in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa in the background of taxation laws, a three-Judge Bench of this Court apart from reiterating the principle of exercise of writ jurisdiction with the time-honoured self imposed limitations, focused on another legal pri....