9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... L.M.L. Fibres Ltd. and (2) Prakati Synthetics Ltd., for issuance of writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of detention passed by respondent No. 1 (Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division-1, Kanpur) and declaring the same ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction and for other incidental reliefs. In the impugned order the Assistant Collecto ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re to the order are detained until such dues are paid. 3. Now the petitioners' contention is that the Central Excise dues are claimed against M/s. L.M.L. Ltd. and that M/s. L.M.L. Fibre Ltd. is a different legal entity distinct from L.M.L. Ltd. It is also stated that Prakati Synthetics Ltd. is also a different legal entity from L.M.L. Fibre Ltd. The order of the CEGAT dated 8-2-1990 referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .L. Ltd. Straightaway, the petitioners approached this Court by way of this writ petition. The contentions raised by the petitioners are not pure questions of law but are essentially one of fact. Whether L.M.L. Ltd. and L.M.L. Fibre Ltd. are one and the same or are distinct entities? Similarly whether L.M.L. Fibre Ltd. and Prakati Synthetics Ltd. are one and the same or are distinct legal entities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of within a reasonable period, this court would interfere, but this Court cannot be converted into original authority. These factual objections cannot be raised for the first time in this Court. 5. The proper course for the petitioners is to approach the detaining authority with a representation raising such objections as are open to them in lay. If the petitioner file any such representation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
