Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/9185/2008 2/ 3 ORDER
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No.9185 of 2008
===================================================
BAJRANG
CASTINGS PVT. LTD. & 2 - Petitioner(s)
Versus
UNION
OF INDIA & 3 - Respondent(s)
===================================================
Appearance
:
MR PARESH M DAVE for Petitioner(s)
: 1 - 3.
MR HARIN P RAVAL for Respondent(s) : 1,
None for
Respondent(s) : 2 -
4.
===================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA
and
HONOURABLE
MS.JUSTICE H.N.DEVANI
Date
: 11/07/2008
ORAL
ORDER
(Per
: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA)
This
petition has been brought by three different petitioners challenging
identically worded three communications dated 26.06.2008 issued by
Superintendent Central Excise, AR-II, Sanand. The petitioners have
sought a writ of prohibition against the respondents from taking any
action of filing a criminal case / criminal prosecution against the
petitioners on the basis of Order-in-Original No.08/COMMR/2007 dated
30.03.2007.
The
case of the petitioners, as presented by the learned advocate, is
that against the order-in-original the petitioners had preferred
appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate
Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad (the Tribunal), accompanied
by applications for stay of demand. That the Tribunal vide order
dated 08.08.2007 in the stay applications has granted waiver of
pre-deposit of the balance amount of duty and penalties imposed on
the applicants considering the payment to the tune of Rs.15,50,000/-
as sufficient deposit against total demand of Rs.47,08,339/-. It is
submitted that if the aforesaid order of the Tribunal is considered
there is no demand outstanding and the respondent authority cannot
issue the impugned three letters proposing to launch prosecution for
alleged non-payment of outstanding dues which have already been
stayed by the order of the Tribunal.
The
impugned letters are dated 26.06.2008 and the petitioners were to
respond by 27.06.2008. Admittedly, till date, no further action
appears to have been taken by the respondent authority. It will be
open to the petitioners to bring to the notice of the respondent
authority the aforesaid facts, more particularly the order of the
Tribunal staying the demand in question.
In
the aforesaid circumstances, it is apparent that the petition is
filed at a premature stage and is not required to be entertained.
The petition is accordingly rejected.
Sd/-
[D.A.
MEHTA, J]
Sd/-
[H.N.DEVANI,
J]
***
Bhavesh*
Top