1987 (10) TMI 66 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against the order declining interim relief during the pendency of a Writ Petition.
2. Challenge of notice and certificate issued by excise authorities.
3. Request for continuation of interim relief based on pending appeal in the Supreme Court.
4. Consideration of furnishing a bank guarantee for the disputed amount.
5. Decision on the appeal and refusal of the request for continuation of interim relief.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by Bharat Barrel and Drum Manufacturing Co. Pvt. Ltd. against an order denying interim relief during the pendency of a Writ Petition seeking a Writ of Mandamus to withdraw a notice and certificate issued by the excise authorities. The appellants purchased a dyeing and bleaching mills in 1955 and leased it to a sister concern. The sister concern failed to pay excise duty, leading to liability issues. The appellants took over the business, but the excise authorities sought to enforce the liability, prompting the Writ Petition challenging the notice and certificate.

2. The appellants argued for the continuation of interim relief based on a pending appeal in the Supreme Court involving the sister concern disputing the liability. However, the court found no merit in this argument, emphasizing that the mere pendency of an appeal does not warrant continued interim relief. The court questioned the delay in pursuing the Writ Petition before the Single Judge, suggesting a lack of genuine interest in resolving the matter promptly.

3. Despite reluctance to interfere with the Single Judge's discretion, the court proposed the appellants provide a bank guarantee for the disputed amount to continue the interim relief. However, the appellants refused to furnish a bank guarantee, insisting on automatic interim relief once the petition is admitted. The court rejected this stance, concluding that there was no justification for granting interim relief, and upheld the Single Judge's order.

4. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs, and the request for the continuation of interim relief was refused. The court declined an oral application for the continuation of interim relief for eight weeks, emphasizing the lack of grounds for such a request. The judgment maintained a strict stance on the necessity of fulfilling obligations and addressing legal matters promptly without undue delay or avoidance tactics.