SAMRUDDHI INDUSTRIES Vs. CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Natrajan, learned counsel (from Chennai) for the petitioner and Shri S.K. Mishra, learned A.S.G.I, for respondents.

(2.) On last occasion learned A.S.G.I, on behalf of respondents had raised objection to the maintainability of the Writ Petition by pointing out that the provisions of Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 contending that alternate remedy of filing an appeal is available.

(3.) The facts in the matter show that after an earlier approach to this Court in Writ Petition assailing an order under Section 35F refusing to waive pre-deposit the petitioners again moved the Appellate Tribunal for its modification and sought to furnish Bank Guarantee instead of depositing the amount. That application has been rejected and that rejection is now assailed in the present Writ Petition. Effort of petitioner is to persuade this Court to accept the Bank Guarantee in place of pre-deposit as compliance with Section 35F.