Gujarat High Court
M/S vs Commissioner on 4 May, 2010
Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/11939/2009 2/ 4 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 11939 of 2009
=========================================================
M/S
STAR AUTO ENGINEERING - Petitioner(s)
Versus
COMMISSIONER
& 3 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance :
MR
PRATIK Y JASANI for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
NOTICE SERVED BY DS for Respondent(s) : 1 - 2,
4,
MS SEJAL K MANDAVIA for Respondent(s) : 1,3 - 4.
GOVERNMENT
PLEADER for Respondent(s) :
2,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 04/05/2010
ORAL
ORDER
(Per : HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI)
1. This petition challenges the action of the respondent No.1 in recovering excise duty on the three wheeler vehicle being assembled by the petitioner, which according to the petitioner is exempted from payment of excise duty in view of Notification No.6/2006 dated 1.03.2006, and seeks the following substantive relief :
(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to hold that the three wheeled motor vehicle and the act of the assembling, marketing and selling done by the petitioner or its agents is exempted from the preview of the Central Excise Act as per the Notification No.6/2006-Central Excise dated 1st March 2006;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct Respondent No.2 to act in accordance with law and not to insist the No Objection Certificate of Central Excise to the customers of the petitioner or its agents;
2. As can be seen from the averments made in paragraph 3.6 of the memo of petition, it has been averred that in the year 2006, the Department of Central Excise had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner for recovery of central excise duty to the tune of Rs.36,00,000/- pursuant to which the petitioner had filed its reply contending that the vehicle assembled by the petitioner was an exempted product. That the said show cause notice came to be adjudicated by the Commissioner of Central Excise whereby the duty demand came to be confirmed, against which the petitioner has preferred an appeal. Thus, insofar as the first prayer is concerned, it is apparent that in respect of the said controversy there is an adjudication by the Central Excise authority, against which appeal has been preferred by the petitioner. In the circumstances, when the petitioner has already availed of the statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority it is not open for the petitioner to agitate the said question before this Court.
3. In so far as the second prayer is concerned, it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has approached the Regional Transport authorities for registration of its vehicle and that, in absence of no objection certificate from the Central Excise authorities, the same has been refused. If at all any person is aggrieved by the non registration of his vehicle, it is for such person to approach the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievance. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, it has no locus standi to challenge the action of the regional transport authorities, more so when the petition is not in the nature of public interest litigation. In the circumstances, since the petitioner lacks locus standi to challenge the alleged refusal, the petition is not maintainable at the instance of the petitioner insofar as the said relief is concerned.
4. For the foregoing reasons, the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs as prayed for in the petition. The petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly rejected. Notice is discharged with no order as to costs.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(D.A.
Mehta, J.) (H.N. Devani,J.)
M.M.BHATT
Top