1 mgj IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLOATE JURISDICTION Writ Petition No. 2471 of 2008 Raymond Limited & anr. ..Petitioners vs The Union of India and others ..Respondents Mr.Prakash Shah with Mr.Jas Sanghvi i/b PDS Legal for petitioners. Mr.R.B.Pardeshi for respondents. CORAM: V.C.DAGA AND K.K.TATED JJ 9 th April ,2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned Counsel for the rival parties. Both the parties agree that so far as prayer clause (a) is concerned wherein declaration is sought by the petitioners that they are entitled to the benefit of exemption under Serial No.10 of the Notification No.30 of 2004 in respect of Polyster tops is already covered by the reasoned judgment of this Court delivered in Writ Petition No.2931 of 2008 in the case of the petitioners itself vide order dated 16 th 2 June, 2009 wherein in paragraph 59 the finding recorded by the Court is as under: 59 For all the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the term  staple fibres at Sr. No.10 of Notification No.30/04 applies to duty paid inputs falling under Heading 55.01 to 55.04 of the CET which are used in the manufacture of Tops (55.06/55.07) and the said term is not restricted to the inputs falling under Heading 55.03/55.04 only. Accordingly, we hold that in the present case, excise duty on Tops (55.06) manufactured from 16% duty paid Tow (55.01) would be exempt under Notification No.30/04 issued in accordance with the new tax regime introduced on 8.7.2004. In view of the above, prayer clause (a) in this petition does not survive. 2 So far as prayer clauses (b) and (c) are concerned they are consequential prayers seeking declaration of invalidity of the seizure. 3 At this juncture it is relevant to note that by an order dated 6 th May, 2008 this Court was pleased to direct that no arrest be made of the Directors subject to deposit of Rs.16 crores. 4 Being aggrieved by the said order dated 6 th May, 2008, the petitioners 3 challenged the said order in the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court was pleased to pass the following order on 20 th June, 2008. The Special Leave Petition is disposed of directing deposit of Rs. 8,00,00,000/- (Rupees Eight Crores only) within a period of eight weeks with the concerned authority. It is stated that show cause notice has already been issued and response thereto has been filed by the petitioners. It would be appropriate if the proceedings pursuant to show cause notice are disposed of early. During the pendency of the above petition, petitioners had filed another petition to challenge the validity of the Notification No.30 of 2004 being Writ Petition No.2931 of 2008 which came to be allowed on 16 th June, 2009 by a reasoned judgment as stated in the opening paragraph of this order. The above judgment is a subject matter of challenge at the instance of the revenue in the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.19929 of 2009. Leave to file appeal has been granted and stay has been refused. The contents of the order are as under: Permission to file additional 4 documents is granted. Leave granted. Hearing expedited. In the meantime, Union of India will deposit Rupees eight crores with the Registry within a period of six weeks from today. The said amount was paid under threat of being detained. On deposit, it would be open to the assessee herein to withdraw the amount against a Bank Guarantee of a Nationalised Bank. The Company will also file an undertaking within two weeks that, in case Union of India succeeds in the matter, it will pay the amount back with interest that may be fixed by this Court at the time of final hearing of the matter. Till such undertaking is given, office not to release the payment. Undertaking to be given by the officer of Company duly authorised to give such undertakings. 5 Mr. Shah, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submit that so far as the deposit of Rs.8 crores, the same was made by the Respondents pursuant to the direction of the Apex Court quoted in paragraph 4 (supra). Mr.Shah further states that the Petitioners have withdrawn the said sum of Rs.8 crores deposited by the Respondents by furnishing a bank guarantee to the Registrar of the Apex Court. The petitioners shall have no objection if the 5 said bank guarantee is allowed to remain with the Revenue along with the additional bank guarantee furnished by the petitioners pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No.19929 of 2009. The statement made in this behalf is taken on record. 6 The validity of the seizure and culmination thereof in the order of confiscation is a subject matter of appeal pending before the Tribunal which the Tribunal shall be free to decide on its own merits in accordance with law. Rival contentions on that count are kept open. However, the security offered herein shall always be subject to the future orders as may be passed by the Competent Courts and/or Tribunal. The petition is accordingly disposed of in the terms of this order. (K.K.TATED J.) (V.C.DAGA J.)