2012 (2) TMI 145 - HC - Central Excise

Recovery of duty - Petition filed to restrain the respondents from proceeding further, pursuant to the order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai - appeal preferred by the petitioner before the Supreme Court, against the order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai - Supreme Court had ordered the issuance of notices to the respondents, on 7.3.2011- Held that - In given circumstances, it would not be appropriate for this Court to entertain the writ petition and grant the relief. Therefore, writ petition is not maintainable and is dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
- Maintainability of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India while an appeal is pending before the Supreme Court challenging the order of the CESTAT, Chennai.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents to refrain from taking recovery measures following the Final Order passed by the CESTAT, Chennai. The petitioner had also appealed to the Supreme Court against the CESTAT's order, and an interim stay was requested. The Supreme Court had directed notices to be served to the respondents. However, the second respondent continued to take action based on the CESTAT's order, leading to the filing of the writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court noted that the appeal was indeed pending before the Supreme Court, challenging the CESTAT's order. Given this, the High Court deemed it inappropriate to entertain the writ petition and grant the relief sought by the petitioner. The Court emphasized that since the Supreme Court was already seized of the matter and had issued notices to the respondents, it was not within the High Court's purview to intervene at this stage. Consequently, the High Court held that the writ petition was not maintainable and proceeded to dismiss it, without imposing any costs on the petitioner.