CHANDRAKANT Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MANGALORE, COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, PATTO AND SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS (TRC)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 01.08.2013 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 76389/2013 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed. In the writ petition the appellant had impugned the notice of demand dated 13.10.2008 and a letter, which, in the petition is described as order dated 15.11.2012. As a matter of fact by this letter the concerned authority has simply reminded the petitioner to pay the amount as per the notice of demand. By the notice of demand the petitioner as well as M/s. Pruthvi Granites Pvt. Ltd. were directed to remit an amount of Rs. 1,29,70,118/ -. The notice of demand was issued on the basis of the order dated 27.10.2005 passed by the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Goa. The appellant had filed appeal against the order dated 27.10.2005 before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Mumbai in Appeal No. C/99/06 -Mum. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 04.09.2006 for noncompliance of the statutory requirement u/S. 129E of the Customs Act, 1962. It is not in dispute that order dated 27.10.2005, in these circumstances, attained finality.

(2.) WE have perused the order dated 27.10.2005 and we are satisfied that the demand notice is based on the said order. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the appellant is not liable to pay the adjudicated amount, in our opinion, has rightly been rejected by the learned Single Judge and refused to interfere under extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. We do not find any infirmity worth considering in the present appeal. Hence the appeal is dismissed.