(1.) THESE writ appeals arise out of the common order made by the learned Single Judge in a batch of writ petitions. The petitioners in the writ petitions are the appellants in these writ appeals. The respondents in the writ petitions are the respondents in these writ appeals. For the sake of convenience, we are referring to the parties as per their nomenclature in the writ petitions. The petitioners before this Court by way of the writ petitions, seeking for writs of declaration, declaring that the levy of excise duty and the compliance of the excise duty procedures and formalities so cited in the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, is illegal so far as the petitioners are concerned. The learned Single Judge examined the scope of the controversy in the writ petitions and ultimately opined in substance that it is a case of investigation into factual aspects and that investigation and adjudication thereof could be done on individual representations by the petitioners to the Authority concerned and the learned Single Judge directed the petitioners to make the appropriate applications within six weeks from the date of his order, made on 6-11-1991. The learned Single Judge further directed that the further course of action in respect of Bank guarantees furnished during the pendency of the writ petitions shall abide by the results of the adjudication on the applications of the petitioners.
(2.) MR. K. Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, endeavored his best to impress upon as that no factual controversy deserves investigation and he wants us to proceed on that basis and apply the ratio of the pronouncements relied on before the learned Single Judge and again cited before us. MR. K. Jayachandran, learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, takes notice for the respondents, and he would submit that it is not possible to proceed on the basis that any factual position is admitted, and in fact pursuant to the Notification No. 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 the petitioners filed classification lists and if really the petitioners consider that they are entitled to exemption, it is open to them to file the appropriate applications or representations, and the learned Additional Central Government Standing Counsel wants us to sustain the order made by the learned Single Judge.
(3.) HENCEWE are not able to take exception to the decision of the learned Single Judge. However, Mr. K. Doraisami, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, points out that the time limit for making the appropriate applications by the petitioners reserved in the order of the learned Single Judge has lapsed, and in case we are maintaining the order of the learned single Judge, we must extend the time. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners further says that the petitioners had the indulgence of interim orders of injunction subject to the condition that each of the petitioners furnishing Bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 4, 000/- in respect of each vehicle to the satisfaction of the second respondent and the same position could be continued until the appropriate applications to be made by the petitioners within the extended time, are disposed by the Authority concerned. We see reason in these requests of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and we find a warrant to countenance them. Accordingly we extend the time for the petitioners to make the appropriate applications to the Authority concerned by six weeks from 18-12-1991. Until the appropriate applications by the petitioners, provided they make the said applications within the time reserved therefor as above, are disposed of by the Authority concerned, and the decisions thereon are communicated to the petitioners, and for a period of four weeks thereafter the respondents are restrained from levying excise duty and from making the petitioners to comply with the formalities and procedures of Excise Rules framed under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, subject to the condition that the petitioners furnish Bank guarantee in a sum of Rs. 4, 000/- (Rupees four thousand) in respect of each vehicle to the satisfaction of the second respondent. The enforcement of the Bank guarantees shall abide by the decisions and it shall stand postponed until the decisions are communicated to the petitioners and for a period of four weeks thereafter. We have maintained the other direction of the learned Single Judge with regard to the further course of action in respect of Bank guarantees already furnished, and that direction shall continue to be operative until the appropriate applications of the petitioners, if preferred within the extended time are disposed of, and the decisions thereon are communicated to the petitioners and for a period of four weeks thereafter. The petitioners shall keep alive the Bank guarantees already furnished and to be furnished until the appropriate applications are disposed of, the decisions thereon communicated to the petitioners and for a period of four weeks thereafter as above. We dismiss these writ appeals and the dismissal of these writ appeal is subject to the above directions. No costs.