1998 (4) TMI 146

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pugned, which aggrieves the petitioner, is dated 27-2-1998 (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). This order has been issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-1, Khatima, Respondent No. 7. The petitioner accepts that in some matters Appeals have been filed and are pending and in some matters hearing has concluded but judgment is awaited. Learned Counsel fairly concedes that any interim order which could be passed by the High Court can be passed by the authority which is seized of the Appeals. In the context of the present case the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 is the Appellate Authority, and the petitioner has a remedy to approach the Appellate Authority and seek consideration of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the petition was filed only for the purposes of seeking a stay order. 5. In the present writ petition, the petitioner again reiterates that he is not challenging the merits of matters but is aggrieved by the coercive steps taken by the department by detaining goods in reference to some adjudication orders, seven of them, referred in the earlier writ petition in Annexure-8. This is the order dated 27-2-1998, referred to in this writ petition also, but as Annexure-'5'. 6.The petitioner wrote a letter to the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-1, Khatima after the first order of the High Court. This is the letter dated 18-3-1998, appended as Annexure - 7 to this writ petition. The amount which is sought to be realised from the petitioner o....