Bhaskar Bhattacharya, ACJ. - (1.) This mandamus appeal is at the instance of unsuccessful writ petitioners and is directed against an order dated September 27, 2006 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by which His Lordship dismissed a writ application filed by the appellants in which they challenged the authority of the Commissioner of Central Excise to issue a notice for audit in terms of Rule 173G(6)(c) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 although a similar notice had already been given by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India in terms of the self-same provision and the consequent audit had also been made.
(2.) By a letter dated October 13, 2000, issued by the office of the Principal Director of Audit, Central, Calcutta .Central Excise, the appellants were informed that the audit of the account relating to excisable goods manufactured in the unit of the appellants would be taken up by CERA Audit Party for the last one/two years thereby asking the appellants to make available various documents mentioned in the said notice for inspection. The said notice gave rise to filing of the writ application out of which the present mandamus appeal arises.
(3.) The grievance of the appellants was that if the audit had already been made by the Central Excise Audit Party and/or the audit party appointed by the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India in the current financial year namely 2000-2001, there was no scope of passing a direction for further audit at the instance of the Commissioner, Central Excise in terms of Rule 173G(6)(c) of the Central Excise Rules. 1944. According to the appellants, once an audit has been made by either the Commissioner of Central Excise or the party sent by the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General, there is no scope of further audit by or at the instance of any of the previously mentioned persons over again. In other words, according to the writ petitioners the word "or" appearing in the aforesaid Rule should not be read as "and".;