JUDGMENT
B. Subhashan Reddy, C.J.
1. These two writ appeals emanate from the order passed by the learned Single Judge in two interlocutory applications, in the pending writ petitions. The matter is to be decided not only in the context of the Customs exemption, but also with regard to the provisions contained in Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.
2. We have heard Mr. R. Sudhakar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. V. T. Gopalan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondents. With the consent of both the learned counsel, we dispose of not only these writ appeals, which have been filed against the interim orders, but also the pending writ petitions.
3. This matter, in fact, was adjudicated once by the Primary Authority holding against the appellant and as such, the appeals were filed. The Appellate Authority, by his order dated 4-7-2000, recorded the submission of the appellant that out of the three issues raised before the primary authority i.e.,
(i) Whether the goods under import viz., L.A.M. Coke, having ash content of 12% or less are eligible for exemption under Notification No. 166/80;
(ii) Whether in the instant case, an order allowing clearance of goods for home consumption having been given under Section 47 of Customs Act,. 1962, the issuing of a show cause notice under Section 28 of the Act, was maintainable in law; and; (iii) If the notices under Section 28 are valid, whether the two show cause notices both dated 2-9-87 are hit by the limitation of time provided under Section 28.
only the issue relating to the construction of the order of the Assessing Authority, as the same is provisional or final, has to be decided. But in spite of the same the primary authority, on remand, did not address on that point, but addressed on the point of classification issue, which was already given up and which was not relevant for adjudication. In view of the same, there is no other alternative except allowing the writ petitions and then remanding the matter to the Primary Authority. The writ appeals and writ petitions are disposed of accordingly setting aside the order of the second respondent and the matter is remitted back to him for hearing and disposal afresh. But the same can be done by the second respondent only after the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR), before whom the matter is pending adjudication regarding the reconstruction of the company, makes its adjudication in the pending proceedings. In view of the dicta laid down by the Supreme Court in Maharashtra Tubes Limited v. State Industrial and Investment Corporation of Maharashtra Ltd. and Anr. , as also Tata Davy Ltd. v. State of Orissa and Ors. , the second respondent has to wait till the BIFR makes its adjudication on the pending proceedings relating to the reconstruction of the company. Subject to the result of the said BIFR proceedings, the second respondent shall take action accordingly by following the directions issued by us mentioned supra. It is needless to mention that should a situation arise for further hearing by the second respondent, subject to such orders as may be passed by BIFR, the second respondent shall deal with all other aspects, which are to be addressed, excepting that of classification. No costs. Consequently, connected W.A.M.Ps and W.P.M.Ps are closed.