Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Mandovi Ispat Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), Central GST and Customs, Goa. The impugned order upheld the earlier order dated 18.08.2004 made by the Additional Commissioner, Customs & Central Excise, Panaji, which confirmed a duty demand of Rs. 1,64,917/-, Rs. 6,74,139/-, Rs. 11,86,696/-, and Rs. 13,80,000/- along with equivalent penalties under Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and interest. The petitioner contended that the impugned order was erroneous and liable to be set aside. The court heard the counsel for the petitioner, Mr. V. M. Doiphode along with Mr. Sarvesh Kamat Malyeker, and the Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents, Ms. Asha A. Desai. The court observed that the challenge was to the appellate order which had confirmed the original demand. The court noted that the petitioner had not been able to point out any jurisdictional error or perversity in the concurrent findings of fact. The court held that in writ jurisdiction, it does not sit as an appellate authority and will not interfere with concurrent findings unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. Since no such infirmity was shown, the court dismissed the petition. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Scope of Judicial Review - The High Court in writ jurisdiction does not act as an appellate authority and will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact unless they are perverse or based on no evidence or suffer from jurisdictional error. The court found no such infirmity in the impugned order. (Paras 3-4) B) Central Excise - Duty Demand and Penalty - Rule 96ZO(3) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Confirmation of Demand - The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demand and penalty imposed by the Additional Commissioner. The petitioner failed to demonstrate any error of law or fact warranting interference. (Paras 3-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned order dated 27.02.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) upholding the duty demand and penalty is liable to be set aside in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, discharged the rule, and made no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction under Article 226 is limited
- concurrent findings of fact not interfered unless perverse or without jurisdiction
- Rule 96ZO(3) of Central Excise Rules for penalty
