9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 118X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Notification No. 6 of 2003 dated 2-3-2003. 3. Though several grounds have been raised in the writ petition and lengthy arguments were advanced on either side in the light of the view I am taking in this matter those submissions and contentions are not being considered. 4. In the above writ petition the order passed by the third respondent in C.No. IV/16-2-2003-CE X.P01 dated 30-6-2004 is challenged. In paragraph 22 of the affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition it is stated as follows : "22. Aggrieved by the said order of the third respondent dated 30-6-2004, the petitioner filed an appeal before Commissioner of Central Excise [Appeals], Chennai (the Appellate Authority). The Appellate Authority remanded the matte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner before the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTATJ which is still pending. While that be so, when an order had been passed by the second respondent which has not been challenged by the petitioner filing of this writ petition against the order passed by the third respondent dated 30-6-2004 which has not been pursued thereafter would amount to abuse of process of court and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs." 6. Mr. G. Sankaran, learned Standing Counsel submitted that the filing of the above writ petition against a non-existent order amounts to clear abuse of process of this Court. He further submitted that the above writ petition itself has been filed only for the purpose of getting a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding counsel the above writ petition has been filed solely for the purpose of getting an interim direction by abusing the process of this Court. Such conduct on the part of the petitioner has to be viewed seriously and no leniency should be shown in these matters. 8. As stated above, the petitioner in his affidavit has stated that against the impugned proceedings the petitioner has no other alternative efficacious remedy which contradicts the petitioner's own averment in paragraph 22, wherein it is stated that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned proceedings was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the third respondent. The petitioner had not only obtained the order of interim stay of a non-existing order, but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
