RAJENDRABAHADUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this petition are limited companies registered under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, having their offices at Indore and factories at Pithampur, district Dhar. The petitioners are manufacturing HDPE woven sacks and for that purpose they have installed HOPE tape plants for manufacture of oriented tape (plastic tape). The petitioners made representations to the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore Division, to the effect that the HDPE woven sacks are articles of plastic and are thus classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The contention of the petitioners was not accepted by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division Indore (respondent No. 4). Therefore, he passed an order dated 11 -1 -1988 wherein the respondent No. 4 held that the HDPE strips of an apparent width of 5 mm are classifiable under sub -head. No. 5406.11 and of Polypropylene under Chapter sub -head. 5406.90 and fabrics thereof under Chapter heading 5408.00. It has further been held that the provisions of Notification No. 223/86 -C.E., dated 3 -4 -1986 are no longer applicable as the term sacks produced on circular looms is nothing but sacks produced out of fabrics manufactured on circular looms. As such they are required to pay duty under Chapter 63.01 at 12 per cent ad valorem. The petitioners have filed appeals against the order of the Assistant Collector before the Collector (Appeals) Central Excise, New Delhi. But in the meanwhile, pending the decision of the appeals, they have filed this writ petition.

(2.) THIS Court, vide its order dated 1 -12 -1988 directed the Collector Appeals to dispose of the appeals expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months and after the disposal of the appeals copy may be filed before this Court. This Court had followed the procedure adopted by a Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Special Civil Application No. 4604 of 1987 filed by M/s. Arms Polymers Ltd, Ahmedabad. Accordingly, later on the order of the Collector Appeals was passed and after perusing the same the matter was finally heard by this Court.

(3.) THE respondent No. 4 has filed return and resisted the petition on the ground that this petition has been filed without exhausting the other channels available for redressing the grievance under the Central Excise Law. The petitioners instead of filing a petition before this Court should have filed an appeal before the Central Excise Gold Appellate Tribunal as has been provided by the Central Excise Act. Therefore, in view of the availability of alternative remedy itself this petition deserves to be dismissed.