2010 (10) TMI 889 - HC - Central Excise

Writ Petition - recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner with respect to excise dues, for which an order was passed on 23-3-07, order was communicated to it on 27-7-09 and thereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal, as mentioned in the writ petition, which is pending before the appellate authority - neither the order by which, the petitioner is aggrieved has been filed nor any relief has been claimed against the said order - There is no occasion for the petitioner to approach this Court at this stage, in case the petitioner seeks any interim relief or wants to deposit the amount due, it can approach the Tribunal, where the matter is pending, writ petition is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Misconceived and ill-drafted petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding excise dues recovery proceedings.

Analysis:
The High Court, represented by Justices Pradeep Kant and Ritu Raj Awasthi, addressed a petition filed by the petitioner concerning excise dues recovery proceedings. The court noted that the petition lacked legal grounds for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claimed that an order regarding excise dues recovery was communicated to them on a specific date and an appeal was subsequently filed, which is pending before the appellate authority.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was willing to deposit the demanded amount, but the court questioned why the authority concerned had not accepted the deposit if the petitioner was prepared to make it. Additionally, it was highlighted that the petition did not include the order causing grievance or any relief sought against it. Respondent no. 2's representative pointed out that the petitioner had already filed an appeal/representation before the Tribunal, rendering the approach to the High Court premature at this stage.

After considering the arguments presented, the High Court concluded that if the petitioner sought interim relief or intended to deposit the amount due, they should approach the Tribunal where the matter was already pending. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, emphasizing the inappropriate timing and lack of legal merit in the petition.