The petitioners are aggrieved by the orders of the third respondent for attaching their bank accounts maintained with respondents 6 to 9. The petitioners' case is largely based upon the order dated 17.09.2012 passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax, Appellate Tribunal, East Regional Bench, Kolkata in Ex. Appeal No.682 of 2006 arising out of Order-in-Original No.20 of 2006 dated 30.08.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong. According to the petitioners, they have succeeded before the Tribunal and therefore, attaching the petitioner's bank account maintained with respondents 6 to 9 does not arise.
2.Admittedly, the entire cause of action has arisen outside the jurisdiction of this Court, in the sense that the order-in-original has been passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, Shillong and the appeal was filed before the CESTAT, Kolkata, in which the petitioner states that they have fully succeeded and the attachment of the bank account maintained with respondents 6 to 9, has been made by the 3rd respondent whose office of which is situated in Guwahati.
3.In fact, more or less identical issue was adjudicated by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of M/s.Zeenath International Supplies Vs. The Commissioner and Ors. in Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1336 of 2006 dated 03.03.2014. Though the said case arose out of a CMA filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962, the Revenue argued the point with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain a writ petition by placing reliance on the decision in the case of M/s.Ambica Industries Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, reported in (2007) 6 SCC 769; the decision of Full Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 2010 Delhi 43; and the decision of the Special Bench of the High Court of Delhi constituted for reconsideration of the decision of the Full Bench of the High Court of Delhi, in the case of M/s.Sterling Agro Industries Ltd., vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in AIR 2011 Delhi 174, (SB).
4.The above decisions, if applied to the facts of the present case, the only conclusion that could be arrived would be to hold that writ petition is not maintainable before this Court.
5.In any event, the petitioners are now questioning the attachment of their bank account. All that they have to do now is to submit their objections with relevant documents to show that they are not due and liable to pay any Central Excise Duty and other duties or penalty.
6.For aforesaid reasons, the writ petition cannot be entertained. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to file their objections to the impugned attachment notices before the third respondent, who shall consider the same in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
04.10.2017 maya Speaking /Non-speaking order Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes /No To
1. The Chairman Central Board of Excise & Service Tax Guwathi.
2. The Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax Guwahati.
3. The Deputy Commissioner Central Excise & Service Tax Sethi Trust Building, 6th Floor G.S.Road, Bhangagarh Guwahati
4. The Assistant Commissioner (Audit) Central Excise & Service Tax Guwahati.
5. The Governor Reserve Bank of India Chennai 600 001.
6. The Branch Manager ICICI Bank Ltd.
A 78, Plot No.3211, 3rd Avenue Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 102.
7. The Branch Manager HDFC Bank Ltd.
AG 21/23th Avenue Shanthi Colony Anna Nagar, Chennai 600 040.
8. The Branch Manager Kotak Mahindra Bank Block Q-100, Plot No.3698 3rd Avenue, Anna Nagar Chennai 600 040.
T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J maya
9. The Branch Manager Citi Bank 50, C P Ramaswamy Road 3rd Street, Abhiramipuram Alwarpet, Chennai 600 018.
W.P No.8638 of 2017 04.10.2017