BHAIRAVI EXIM P LTV Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties. By letter dated 17.7.2002 (Annexure : E) the Superintendent, Central Excise, A.R.IV, Div. V. Ahmedabad, directed the petitioner not to carry out any further removal of raw-materials/semi finished goods/finished goods under Self Removal Procedure and the SRP facility of the unit was withdrawn till further orders. Thereafter, by letter dated 26.7.2002 the Deputy Commissioner, Central Excise, Division V, Ahmedabad I, directed the petitioner to pay up the duty liability involved in three cases within 10 days of receipt of the said letter, failing which the office may initiate enforcing their B/17 Bond and/or launching offence case against them on the ground that three Exports effected by their merchant Exporter M/s.Systematic Corporation, Mumbai, were not at all effected and the proof of export submitted by them to their office was forged (Annexure : F). Aggrieved by this the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition on 2.8.2002. On 5.8.2002 the Division Bench of this Court issued Notice making it returnable on 2.9.2002 and also passed speaking interim order by which it was clarified that pendency of this petition would not preclude the respondents and other Authorities like the Director of Revenue (Intelligence) from carrying out necessary inquiry/investigation against the petitioner as well as respondent No.4 in respect of the allegations contained in the letter dated 26.7.2002 (Annexure : F).

(2.) It seems that inspite of this direction, issued to the respondents, nothing was done in the matter and ultimately on 17.9.2002 another Division Bench of this Court admitted the matter by issuing Rule on it and granted interim relief in terms of Para : 11(E). The said interim relief is operating till today in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) It seems that at the initial stage no reply to the petition was filed when the Notice was issued to the respondents. But, later on, after admission of the petition, detailed Reply Affidavit dated 29.10.2002 was filed wherein it is contended that the petitioner has forged F.No. and signature which does not belong to the office of Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva. This has not been controverted by the petitioner by filing Rejoinder.