LAWS(BOM)-1990-1-55

STERLITE CABLES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On January 01, 1990
Sterlite Cables Ltd Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Petition No. 891 of 1984 has been filed by the petitioners challenging an order of the Customs authorities that the goods imported by them were consumer items and were not raw material. This writ petition is pending and pursuant to the interim order by this Court the petitioners have been allowed to clear the goods on furnishing Bank guarantee for the full amount that will be payable if the contention of the Department is upheld. The Department was also allowed to continue adjudication proceedings, which have now resulted in an order against the petitioners. An order has been passed imposing redemption fine upon the petitioners, who have gone in appeal to the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 12th June 1988, has directed that the petitioners should deposit the entire redemption fine ordered to be paid by the Collector of Customs before the appeal is heard.

(2.) The petitioners have taken out this chamber summons for the purpose of amending the petition by incorporating these developments which have taken place subsequent to the filing of the petition. I see no impediment in granting this chamber summons because the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the order passed by the Tribunal will have to be examined at the time of the final fearing of the petition. This is so especially because pursuant to an order passed by this Court the petitioners have furnished Bank guarantee for the amount which is held to be now due to the Department.

(3.) Mr. Rege for the respondent has opposed the chamber summons by contending that the amendment is not necessary at all for the disposal of the writ petition and secondly that the chamber summons has been taken out delatedly. For the reason's mentioned above, I reject the first of the contention of Mr. Rege and as far as the second contention is concerned, I am of the opinion that the delay in the instant case is not such that one should throw out the proposed amendment.