Bombay High Court
B.R. Sule vs Union Of India on 1 January, 1800
Equivalent citations: 1990ECR468(BOMBAY), 1990(48)ELT343(BOM)
JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Shri Mehta waives service on behalf of the respondents. Heard counsel.
2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners are challenging the validity of show cause notice dated September, 14, 1989 and the copy of which is annexed as Ex. `C' to the petition. The grievance of the petitioner is that the show cause notice recites that M/s. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited has fabricated certain items of iron and steel which are classifiable under Chapter heading 7326.90 and in respect of which benefit of exemption under Notification No. 217/86 dated Apri, l2, 1986 is not available. The show cause notice claims that the assessee has contravened the provisions of Central Excise Rules and is liable for payment of duty and penalty. As regards the petitioners, the show cause notice recites that they have contravened the provisions of Rule 209A of the Rules inasmuchas they concerned themselves or deal with the goods which they knew or had reason to believe were liable for confiscation under the Act and the Rules thereunder and which are punishable as the offence.
3. Shri Setalwad, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners can by no stretch of imagination be said to be concerned with the goods or knowledge can be attributed to them that the duty was not paid by claiming exemption under the notification. The learned counsel urged that petitioners Nos. 1, 2 and 4 are not concerned with the working of the factory at Mauje Talegaon in Igatpuri Taluka and are working in main office in Bombay as Directors or Senior Officers. As regards, petitioner No. 3, the show cause notice does not make any averment that this petitioner was concerned with alleged evasion of duty. In these circumstances, Shri Setalwad is right in claiming that the show cause notice was totally uncalled for against these Officers of the Company. In my judgment, the show cause notice is, therefore, required to be quashed.
4. Accordingly, rule is made absolute and the impugned show cause notice dated September, 14, 1989 is quashed only as regards the petitioners and the respondents are restrained from proceeding further with the show cause notice. In the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.