Dismissal of Writ Petition on Excise Dues Recovery: Lack of Legal Grounds for High Court InterventionWrit Petition - recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner with respect to excise dues, for which an order was passed on 23-3-07, order was communicated to it on 27-7-09 and thereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal, as mentioned in the writ petition, which is pending before the appellate authority - neither the order by which, the petitioner is aggrieved has been filed nor any relief has been claimed against the said order - There is no occasion for the petitioner to ap... ... ... Issues:
Misconceived and ill-drafted petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India regarding excise dues recovery proceedings.

Analysis:
The High Court, represented by Justices Pradeep Kant and Ritu Raj Awasthi, addressed a petition filed by the petitioner concerning excise dues recovery proceedings. The court noted that the petition lacked legal grounds for intervention under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner claimed that an order regarding excise dues recovery was communicated to them on a specific date and an appeal was subsequently filed, which is pending before the appellate authority.

The petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner was willing to deposit the demanded amount, but the court questioned why the authority concerned had not accepted the deposit if the petitioner was prepared to make it. Additionally, it was highlighted that the petition did not include the order causing grievance or any relief sought against it. Respondent no. 2's representative pointed out that the petitioner had already filed an appeal/representation before the Tribunal, rendering the approach to the High Court premature at this stage.

After considering the arguments presented, the High Court concluded that if the petitioner sought interim relief or intended to deposit the amount due, they should approach the Tribunal where the matter was already pending. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, emphasizing the inappropriate timing and lack of legal merit in the petition. Writ Petition - recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner with respect to excise dues, for which an order was passed on 23-3-07, order was communicated to it on 27-7-09 and thereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal, as mentioned in the writ petition, which is pending before the appellate authority - neither the order by which, the petitioner is aggrieved has been filed nor any relief has been claimed against the said order - There is no occasion for the petitioner to approach this Court at this stage, in case the petitioner seeks any interim relief or wants to deposit the amount due, it can approach the Tribunal, where the matter is pending, writ petition is dismissed NARAIN TRANSPORT FREIGHT CARRIER Versus UNION OF INDIA
Central Excise
2010 (10) TMI 889 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - 2011 (273) E.L.T. 505 (All.) , 2012 (27) S.T.R. 319 (All.)
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT - HC
Dated:- 8-10-2010
Misc. Bench No. 10018 of 2010 - -
Central Excise
Pradeep Kant and Ritu Raj Awasthi, JJ. REPRESENTED BY : Shri Anuj Pandey, Counsel, for the Petitioner. Shri Rajesh Singh, Chauhan, ASG and Vineet Kumar Pandey, for the Respondent. [Order]. - Notice on behalf of respondent No. 1 has been accepted by Sri Vineet Pandey and on behalf of respondent no. 2, by Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan. 2. Wholly misconceived and ill-drafted petition has been filed by the petitioner, which does not disclose any reason, much less any legal ground for intervening in the matter under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. It appears that some recovery proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner with respect to excise dues, for which an order was passed on 23-3-07. According to the petitioner, this order was communicated to it on 27-7-09 and thereafter the petitioner had filed an appeal, as mentioned in the writ petition, which is pending before the appellate authority. 4. The petitioner's counsel has only argued that the petitioner is prepared to make the deposit of the amount demanded, but we fail to appreciate that if the petitioner is willing to deposit the amount due, why the same would not be accepted by the authority concerned. Apart from this, Sri Rajesh Singh Chauhan, appearing for respondent no. 2, has pointed out, that neither the order by which, the petitioner is aggrieved has been filed nor any relief has been claimed against the said order. Moreover, according to the petitioner, it has preferred an appeal/representation before the Tribunal, which is pending. There is no occasion for the petitioner to approach this Court at this stage. 5. We have considered the aforesaid plea and we are of the view that in case the petitioner seeks any interim relief or wants to deposit the amount due, it can approach the Tribunal, where the matter is pending. 6. The writ petition is dismissed.
Case laws, Decisions, Judgements, Orders