IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH MARCH 2010 / 18TH PHALGUNA 1931 OP.No. 2342 of 2003(D) ---------------------------- PETITIONER : -------------------- A.P.STEEL RE-ROLLING MILL LIMITED, MENONPARA ROAD, KANJIKODE P.O., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, MR.K.PANKAJAKSHAN. BY ADV. MR.T.M.SREEDHARAN RESPONDENTS : ---------------------- 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, CALICUT COMMISSIONERATE, C.R. BUILDINGS, MANANCHIRA, CALICUT-673 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PALAKKAD VI RANGE, PALAKKAD. ADVS. MR.JOHN VARGHESE, SCGSC FOR R MR.JOHN VARGHESE,SC,CEN.BOARD OF EXCIS FOR R2 & 3 MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JVT S. SIRI JAGAN, J ------------------------- O.P.No. 2342 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of March 2010 J U D G M E N T The learned Counsel for the petitioner admits that the issue involved in this Original Petition is covered against the petitioner by the judgment in O.P.No.20565 of 2002 which reads as follows :- “The writ petition is filed with the following two prayers :- “(i) To call for the records leading to Ext.P1 order and Ext.P2 letter and quash the same by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or such other writ, order or direction. (ii) To direct the second respondent to reconsider the issue of imposition of a penalty on the petitioner afresh particularly in view of the fact that the petitioner had, during the relevant period, effected an excess payment of Rs.11,35,619/- towards duty payment on Hot Re-rolled products” 2. Learned Assistance Solicitor General submits that, the issue is covered against the petitioners by the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Supreme Steels and General Mills Ltd. Judgment dated 15.10.01 in civil appeal Nos.52-63 of 1998. In the above circumstances, the writ petition is dismissed making it clear that in case the petitioner has any dispute as to the factual matrix, it will be open to the petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent.” Accordingly following that judgment this O.P. is dismissed. S. SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE Jvt