1995 (8) TMI 72

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 2.Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act. The petitioner firm has set-up a factory at Mandsaur to manufacture twisted bars. The products of the petitioner are subject to Central Excise Duty under the Central Excise Tariff. The respondent No. 2 passed the order dated 7-8-1993 (Annexure I) demanding duty of Rs. 1,09,761/-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... been filed against the aforesaid order (Annexure I) and that the same is pending. 6.Parallel proceedings are not normally permissible under the law. It is delinked from other petitions as mentioned in order dated 1-2-1994 due to parallel proceedings. 7.In AIR 1961 Supreme Court 1615 (Carl Still G.M. b.h. & Another v. The State of Bihar and Others), it is held as under :- "(iii), if a sta....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....C 754 (State of UP and Anr. v. Labh Chand), it is held that :- "When a statutory Forum or Tribunal is specially created by a statute for redressal of specified grievances of persons on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such persons to ventilate their specified grievances before it by entertaining petitions under Art. 226 of the Constitution is a legal position which is ....