SYNTHETICS LTD Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashment of the notice of detention dated August 12, 1997 (Annexure F) issued under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, by the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise Division, Ujjain (respondent No. 1), whereby the goods of the petitioner-company have been detailed and attached.

(2.) ORIGINALLY the notice (Annexure F) was sought to be impugned mainly on the ground that even before issuance of the notice (Annexure F), a reference under Section 15 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (for short, "the Act"), had been made by the petitioner-company to the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (for short. "the BIFR") for preparation and sanction of schemes for reconstruction of the petitioner-company which had become sick. The application under Section 15 was made on August 8, 1997, to the Registrar of the Board and an information in this regard was given to the respondents on August 11, 1997. Again on August 12, 1997, a letter was served on respondent No. t which enclosed a memo dated August 12, 1997, from the Registrar of' the Board stating that a reference made by the petitioner-company under Section 15 has been registered with the Board. The petitioner thus contended that the enquiry as envisaged under Section 16 of the Act had commenced on receipt by the Board of the reference made by the petitioner-company on August 8, 1997. On such commencement, it was further contended, the consequences as enumerated under Section 22 of the Act would follow and no action for recovery of any dues shall lie or be proceeded with against the petitioner. The detention notice (Annexure F) could not be therefore legally issued by respondent No. l.

(3.) THE petition was contested by the respondent mainly on the ground that no proceedings under Section 15 and onward of the Act had commenced on the date when the detention notice (Annexure F) was issued against the petitioner. Mere filing of reference under Section 15 with the Board, could not and did not amount to the commencement of the proceedings attracting the operation of Section 22.