SIDDHARTHA TUBES LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter had come up for consideration before this Court on 2. 4. 1998. On the said date after hearing the counsel for parties a direction was given that interim relief as prayed for by the petitioners would continue till 15. 7. 1998. Meanwhile both parties were directed to approach the Supreme Court and obtain appropriate orders, failing which the petition was directed to be listed for final hearing on 20th July, 1998.

(2.) IT appears that the petitioners were not able to obtain orders of stay for the Supreme Court. They accordingly filed an application I. A. No. 3871/98 for extension of the stay granted in their favour after 15. 7. 1998. The said application was rejected by this Court on 30. 7. 1998 as the petitioners were not able to obtain stay order from the Supreme Court despite the SLP being filed on 13. 7. 98. The learned Counsel appearing for petitioners reiterated the prayer for grant of time on the pretext that the result of the SLP is not yet known. The very fact that petitioners have not informed the learned Counsel appearing for petitioners the result of the SLP goes to show that they are not seriously prosecuting the matter in the Supreme Court. I, therefore, deem it fit to hear this petition on merits.

(3.) IN this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner is challenging Annexure-P-5 which deals with manner of payment of duty which was found by Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Ujjain on his visit to petitioners' factory on 16. 2. 1998. Or inspection of petitioner's factory on 16. 2. 1998 he found certain irregularities and illegalities which were being committed by the petitioners in payment of the duty. The Authority, therefore, directed that the payment of duty is not being made in accordance with the order passed by Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (for short CEGAT) on 5. 1. 1996 parties being Siddharth Tubes v. Collector, Central Excise. The Authority further directed that if payment of duty is not made as per the direction passed by the CEGAT then proceedings against the petitioner would be initiated under Section 173q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It is this direction which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.