C l^- f < ^ ^-y IN THE HIGHCOURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.NQ, 2^3°3GF^2005 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS M/S Uniworth Ltd. 923-945,Urla , Industrial Area Sarona Raipur (CG) Through itSAuthorizedSignatory Deputy General IVIanager ShFi.A.P. Khetan S/oShriR.P. Khetan, age 41 years .-/" VERSUS 1) Unionof India, Mjnistry of Fingnce, Department of Revenue, NortRBIock, New-Delhi. 2) Custpms Excise & Service Tax Appellate Trihunal (CESTAT) WestB16okNo.Il R.K. Puram, New Delhi ;3) ,C|ommissipner "' ^ Cieritral Excise & Customs, NeweentratRevenue|BUilding,i TikraPara, F(aipur(C.©.) ; ::^^^.._.__.L^.£i)£l. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTIC1-B32M227 OF Tl-IE ©ONS111WUil(a» isiia SM t. '• •<v.tl: r 'fflffll i?:!'al -:i.11 1U S?SSWI SSBSSSSsSS'SS -Si.M-W^ sn^WEiitR'ii'fe 'wi an^w ait<i*!> f-p '"%SiSS3 *afflpiT.a**ira» ^St:'<l'l<liy.Al,£®id1^* ,i..felel;t*l;ti<: '^.i...:Mie'i....M.... IX ^^I'TO^^'^fg^T); '^RmR^SfCTSlAW 8.7.2005 Mr. P. Diwafcar, Sr. Counj the petitioner." Heard learned Sr. Couns^l. of admissiori of fhis writ petitLOil| -V "•".. The petitioner .has prd5ei-i[ 226/-227 of^theConstitutionofi propriety. of order i dated ,4 .5,[ respondetlt.No.S-CESTATwIier^by 3ta^Tiig aU pre-deposit of ceatry peaalty'of'Rs.3 Lacs was parfjy directed to deposit Rs.45 lakhsi half offhe total auiouiit assessed Havuig heard learned Sr.l perused tlie' petition; show cau.| Superinteu<ient, Central Excisej date4 23.12.3004 passedby.tia^ & Ceiitral Excise,^Raipur and al^i Videdeeisionilated 28.9.[ Central Excise Division, Raiput) duty and genalty on fhe psfijEioi Coinpany sold wool ^waste and Taj-iff.Area^fDTA) .at beue&t of noti&caticiii ,Ho. 2/.9; td^wifh Htr; Kunal Das, lCounsel fbr concessiclnal ^^>l^<n*tti •RR^^f1^%^<T<i^i< ^? stf^PT Sff^T ^- : '^ for the pedtioner on the questibn |ed: fhls wrif petition under. Article i India questioniiig fhe legality and POOS (ftanexure P-5) |gassed by the prayer |of the petitipner for . excise duty Rs.92,93,767/- and rejected and the pedtiorier. was |witlun a period of eigEit weeks i.e. , agaiiist tMe petLtionex, { ' Couxisel.for fhe petttuHier.I.liaue: ^e noti.ee dated 1.9.1999 issUed tey Range W,' Raipur, appeUate^ ordef Coiiiinissiocner (Appeals) CustoBis IpfheorderofGESTAT,;: ^001 the ftssisfaat Ccim.iD.ission.ea-^ uriposed liability of central excise ' |toner holding that ttie; petiiioner| -ejeisted •roopF yarn ititiie ^E>oi:n.estic. i'ate, of (iuty 'liy^awaitaig': tBei;; -Ci£;date(i 4.1.1995 WTltlio'Ettl^grior ^-1 • "- -; w^r w foi* S5l*1)<!?> ^ T^ '<4i.<i:iei<-i,-'8)nl<?!<re,.Tq<;it^lj;(; .,. to. jp-2.to ^./d;s',.; 3TRSnraw{Tj^«i^) TSfSW atl^t —t( catioa periaissipn. or satislacfion of tl| Tlris order was ehaUenged befotl in. turn also confirBie& fhe ordet- fact fhat the petitioner (lid n|pf perinission from. the Assistant| du-eetion''fi-om. the y.epaitm.eu1| dated 25.9.1998 & 28.9.r99l indicates that fhey have delibei|ately said condition of fhe Nofificatiba. petitioner preferred an appeal stay, which has been partly rej' order. . • !, . '. ... Learned Sr. Gounsel &r^ perinission was required by violation of notilicatioii No. tlie tribuna3? ough.t ;to have and penalty iti question.' ^ As per^ averiCEeats inade positloB. tliat Ahe petifioner approved by tlie ,Board . of | manufacture & exRort of 'Woo] and blended yarn (dyed S, gTey)| 100% prQductictB excliKlulg Tqj^Gts sold iri the Doinestic Tariffi .filrea ;5BR^gt:T'fli*iaf'i!1^%t <FS«^i*. • ^'afflmstit^r.. ;'^%;:; ^e'Assistant Corci.niissioriet', Excise. )e the Coiainissioxier (Appeals), whp aud held fhat it is an: established m.tuiiate and obtam. necessary [.Coniniissioner despite ^the speci&c vide fespector In-chai-ge's' letters ^ 'and cleared tlie gpods xvhich igaored.'th.e conlpllariQe of tlie Agaiust;) fhe said order tlie [before fhe CESTAT and prayed fpr ^cted. by the tribunal-vide inipugaed [tlie petitioner argued.that no priar |tlie. petition.er, and.'tliere was . no ;-GE dated 4.1.1995. ,', 'FhaEibrs, the order imposiag.excis&duty 2y|95 stalyed tn the writ petition, it.'is adaiitted is a, 100% exporf ^onetTted ^urut, Af^ciwals. for 100% 'SXyU's^^^^^^ . Tops, (Dyed & Grey),' wpoleEt yaid^: •The ^ietitioner is reqiUEed to ^export not exeeediug 5%'wtoich (iaia. toe, (BTA) :i.e. .vnfhai^tlie1 £Qiuntt'y;;i. r^.. ^ si'^T'BrR'fi* 'RT3iI%?Taifl«!> .(£^:\ 7 (.-<it<ii<;l*l,^-alwre^fi<<!'t ^ :. .:':.^.Y? •2-^0.^0 jf K^ a^ST:q^T^(1pfg^l) TOiiwefe aifet ^i«(i<"t<ff^*ii*i<ei*? ^f fe^ <fflt^l<; &—- "' ii''^ifiCT3ri^r • .-: petitiajaer During the period February, petitioner sold wool -waste arid, Tartff Area (DTA) at concessic^ benefit of Noti&catLon Wo. 2/9) orders inade by Assistant (Appeals) shows tliat tlie requirements of above notificat| doinestic niarket •ndthout satis and his pCTm.ission, as requu-ed It is admitted position correcttiess of tiie said orders statutory appellate board i.e. <?bnsideration' before fhe said wlien the appeal is^already express opinibn^ on .the ruerits approached.fbis^Goiu't only on^ excise dnty and^ penalty. already stayed:-1±teiteposit of beeu asked to deposit orily Rs.' date offUe order. ; Having perused tta.e ordei) tife reeords, I aai of;the Qpinion| t]ae Tribuiial is aot'ui aay wa^ uiferferCTice byi tlus ;Cour£and; Goitimissioner 501% 45 1999 to September,; K99 the [rejected wool yarn in the Doinestic ^aal rate& of duty by avaUiug the g-CE dated 4.1.1995;whereas the Eind the CoiniuissionCT hereia failed to coiu-ply ^vitli fhe ipn, as he sold ftie niaferial in tlle ifvuie tlie Assistant. Comiuissioaer fcnder ihe saidnoti&cacton. jEtiat questioning fhe legaUty aiid ^ll appeal has been filed before the ;EgTAT,- DeUu, wliich^ is pen.dm§ [Tribunal, therefore at tbis sta.ge, ;, tliis courtisnot^requiredto of the case and the petitioner has ^efusal oftotal stay on iinposition qf tribunal 'vide impugn.ed prder ;haS % of.amQUB.fandti'ie petifionerhas Lacs witlain eight weeiks.fi'Qin fb.e, pe^idin; of tlie eoinaiissiona- (Appeals) and that tlie^im.pugaed.^order passeditqT iUegal.or incorrect wbleb xequiajes. EBoreover, as argued by learrtedJBr? "•'/•-:.,-ii ;Swi;K •^^1'S^?!ffi il '^'i'i'; 11 S3Xt asii •ai aii lliil ';'1^!!IBSIII :i)IBI ;• 1^111 "R*"!1!1 -"?®°^^^^^:s^:-' ^sS^.^S^^^S^-. ^^ "^ i Ait<a<-i,^^' ,- fayi My< —^^f^yi0.^0.^..;........ an^T'q^X^j^^T);. i'sn^r'm RiA affisn^TwN' ilRlosh&r /;- '^n^iT^^TF N^FT •^ ©ouasel.-tiiatas per statutory.n appeal tlie petitioner was requir; question. 1'h.erefore, learned able to make out a c.ase to iut' passed' by tbe CESTAT by exerc: liiider Arficle 22;6?227 ofthe Goi] In^ft(e.re§ia!It, tla.e •petitton;;i to te dismissed.aiid if, is Iieret)i -itself. ^I3tf?!pfts? ^it^df ^ffe1^ <1^i<$i-C^ .%3ifiiH3n^r •ejiiuu'emeat for enfertauuaent ofthe ^d.to deposij. 50% of tlie; aruount in cou^isel for the petitioner has nof beeu fcrfere wdth the iuterlocutory order tsing ttie extraordinary jurisdictton tstitution of India. ; ^f fhBpetitioner fails, saaie is Uable disslissed at.tlie admission stage Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo