1998 (9) TMI 100 - HC - Central Excise

Court dismisses petition challenging duty payment compliance order, emphasizes compliance with CEGAT until Supreme Court stay.

The court rejected the petitioners' application for extending interim relief, criticizing their failure to obtain a stay order from the Supreme Court. The ... Stay - Writ jurisdiction - Premature stage Issues:1. Extension of interim relief2. Challenge to payment of duty order3. Legal position on obtaining stay orders4. Merits of the matterAnalysis:1. The judgment involved the consideration of extending interim relief granted to the petitioners until a specified date. The court directed both parties to approach the Supreme Court for appropriate orders and stated that failing to do so would lead to the final hearing on a set date. The petitioners failed to obtain a stay order from the Supreme Court despite filing an application for extension, leading to the rejection of the said application by the court. The court noted the petitioners' lack of seriousness in pursuing the matter in the Supreme Court and proceeded to hear the petition on its merits.2. The petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution challenged an order (Annexure P5) related to the manner of payment of duty following an inspection of the petitioner's factory. The Assistant Commissioner found irregularities in duty payment, directing compliance with a previous order by the CEGAT. Failure to adhere to the CEGAT's order would result in proceedings under Section 173Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The petition primarily contested this direction issued by the Authority.3. The respondents contended that filing an SLP against the CEGAT order did not automatically stay the order unless specifically granted by the Supreme Court. They emphasized the duty of petitioners to continue payment as directed by CEGAT until the order was set aside, citing precedents from various High Courts. The court acknowledged the legal principle that mere filing of an appeal does not imply an automatic stay unless explicitly ordered by the appellate court.4. On examining the merits of the case, the court found that the challenged order did not determine any rights of the petitioners but merely directed compliance with the CEGAT's payment instructions. After hearing arguments from both parties, the court concluded that the petition lacked merit and substance, leading to its dismissal without costs. The interim relief granted was vacated by the court's specific order, allowing the respondents to proceed with the matter as per the judgment.