Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

M/S The Jalandhar Cable Operator ... vs Union Of India & Ors on 16 January, 2017

Bench: S.J. Vazifdar, A.B. Chaudhari

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                             CHANDIGARH


                                                             CWP-594-2017
                                            Date of decision:- 16.01.2017


       M/s The Jalandhar Cable Operator Welfare Association

                                                                ...Petitioners
                                  Versus

       Union of India and others
                                                                ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.J. VAZIFDAR, CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.B. CHAUDHARI

Present:- Mr. Chanderhas Yadav, Advocate,
           for the petitioners.
                      * * * *
S.J. VAZIFDAR, C.J. (ORAL)

The petitioners have challenged an order dated 16.09.2015 by which officers of different designations have been entrusted the task of deciding proceedings relating to various assessees.

2. Notices have been directed to be decided by the Principal Commissioner of Central Excise, Additional Commissioner/Joint Commissioner of Central Excise and Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh-I. It is contended that these officers lack inherent jurisdiction to decide the show cause notices. An identical writ petition was filed by the petitioners being CWP-3720-2016 which as recorded in the order dated 21.03.2016 was dismissed as withdrawn. The Division Bench observed that it would be open to the petitioners to take recourse to remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law. In view of this order, there is no justification in filing the present writ petition. There are no change in circumstances.

1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2017 23:19:04 ::: CWP-594-2017 2

3. Merely because in respect of certain assessees ex-parte orders have been passed, a fresh writ petition ought not to be entertained in view of the order dated 21.03.2016. The contentions raised before us can also be raised in the appropriate proceedings. Needless to clarify that we have expressed no view on the merits of the contention. Needless to add further that this order does not prevent the petitioners from filing an application for review of the order dated 21.03.2016.

4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.

(S.J. VAZIFDAR) CHIEF JUSTICE (A.B. CHAUDHARI) JUDGE 16.01.2017 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2017 23:19:05 :::