Court emphasizes procedural compliance & authority engagement before seeking judicial intervention

The Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of following proper procedures and engaging with the relevant authorities before seeking judicial intervention. In the case involving a Public Limited Company, the Court highlighted the responsibility of filing affidavits by a credible individual to ensure authenticity. The Court found no lack of jurisdiction in the Superintendent of Central Excise's intimation and stressed the need to approach the Appellate Authority before seeking court intervention for expedited consideration of Appeals and stay applications. Additionally, the Court emphasized the necessity of formal requests to the Appellate Authority over relying solely on cited judgments.

---

---

Issues:
1. Affidavit filing responsibility for a Public Limited Company.
2. Quashing of intimation from the Superintendent of Central Excise.
3. Consideration of Appeals and stay applications by the Appellate Authority.
4. Request for expedited disposal of Appeals and stay applications.
5. Consideration of judgments cited in the writ petition.

Issue 1: The Court noted that in a matter involving a Public Limited Company, the affidavit should ideally be filed by a responsible person such as the Company Secretary or the individual in charge of finances. This responsibility was emphasized to ensure the credibility and authenticity of the information presented in the affidavit.

Issue 2: The petitioner sought to quash an intimation from the Superintendent of Central Excise regarding potential auction proceedings if the assessed amount was not deposited or a stay order was not produced. The Court found no lack of jurisdiction in the authority's order and deemed it inappropriate to issue a Writ of Certiorari based on manifest error.

Issue 3: The petitioner expressed grievance over the Appellate Authority's alleged non-consideration of Appeals and stay applications. The Court observed that the petitioner had not approached the Appellate Authority to expedite the process, which was deemed necessary before seeking intervention through a writ petition.

Issue 4: Despite the petitioner's claims of visiting the Appellate Authority's office for expedited consideration of Appeals and stay applications, the Court highlighted the absence of formal requests on record to the Appellate Authority. The Court emphasized the importance of following due process and engaging with the Appellate Authority before resorting to judicial intervention.

Issue 5: The petitioner's counsel requested consideration of judgments cited in the writ petition. However, the Court deemed the situations in the cited judgments as different and not directly applicable to the present case. The Court emphasized the need for the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority for the expedited disposal of Appeals and stay applications rather than relying solely on cited judgments.

Ultimately, the Court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the importance of following proper procedures and engaging with the relevant authorities before seeking judicial intervention.

---