INDOWORTH (INDIA) LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI)

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Deo, learned Counsel for the petitioners.

(2.) By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 25-8-2009 by which the order of provisional assessment was passed by the Commissioner, Customs and Excise. According to Mr. Deo, learned Counsel for the petitioners by the impugned order the petitioners have been called upon to deposit 50% of the differential value i.e. Rs. 1,25,21,129/- which is contrary to the Regulation 2 under which at the time of passing of the order of provisional assessment the assessee can be asked to deposit only 20% amount assessed. The learned Counsel, therefore, submits that the writ petition filed against the said order is maintainable. Mr. Deo further submits that the CEGAT, South Zonal, Madras in Shanti Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore,2000 123 ELT 643 has taken a view that against the order for provisional assessment no appeal lies under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, the petition filed is maintainable.

(3.) Per contra, Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that the petitioners have effective alternative remedy by way of appeal to the Tribunal under Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 and, therefore, the petition ought not to be entertained. Learned Counsel relies upon the Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of Nivaram Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. CEGAT, Madras, 2006 205 ELT 9 in which Madras High Court has held that in the tax matter there should be no short circuiting of statutory remedies of appeal, revision etc. and when there is alternative remedy under Section 35G of Central Excise Act, 1944 available, High Court ought not to have entertained the writ petition.