ULTRATECH CEMENT LTD. Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in these writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have sought the following reliefs:

(2.) When this writ petition was called out for admission, Mr. Kantharia appearing on behalf of the Revenue/respondents raised a preliminary objection and submitted that the writ petition may not be entertained as it challenges a show cause-cum-demand notice. Since the matter has been brought at the stage of a show cause notice, this Court should not interfere in writ jurisdiction. More so, when there are disputed questions of fact. Mr. Kantharia was fair to submit that the writ petition proceeds on certain conjectures and surmises, particularly that the show cause notice would be necessity and is bound to be adjudicated against the petitioners, meaning thereby the demand would be confirmed The show cause notice is based on certain understanding of the department/Revenue of a position in law, but according to Shri Kantharia, that does not mean that the contentions of the petitioners and based on the grounds in this writ petition will not be fairly considered and adjudicated. There is absolutely no basis for a general assumption. More so, when in the case of an adverse adjudication as well, there are multiple remedies under The Central Excise Act, 1944. At this stage, therefore, this Court should refrain from interfering in writ jurisdiction. More so, in the light of the clarification given on behalf of the Revenue.

(3.) Mr. Kantharia has placed heavy reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, firstly in the case of Union of India v. Guwahati Carbon Limited, 2012 11 SCC 651 Mr. Kantharia then relies upon the two Division Bench judgments of this Court which follow a Supreme Court decision and particularly on the point of availability of alternate and equally efficacious remedy.