p s; L/ k V / wk L 3mm %Emn @ IN THE HIGH COU a Lx‘h § PETITIONERS: ESPONDENTS: f OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PL ((éLNo. égfg2 [2010 Satyam Caterers Pvt. Ltd. Panchavati, Deepak Nagar, Durg, Chhattisgarh. Vijay Kumar Agrawal Director, Satyam Caterers Pvt. Ltd. R/O Satyam Shivam Sundaram Deepak Nagar, Durg, Chhattisgarh._ VERSUS Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Central Excise Building, Tikrapara, Raipur,‘ Chhattisgarh Superintendent — Audit, Customs and Central Excise, Central Excise Building, Tikrapara, Raipur, Chhattisgah. Superintendent — Audit, Central Excise, Range — Durg, Central Excise Building, Opposite 32 Bungalows, HUDCO, Bhilai, (C.G.) Indian Railway Catering 85 Tourism through: Corporation Limited, Managing Director, 9th Floor, Bank of Baroda Building, 16 Parliament Street, New Delhi. Union of India Through: Ministry of Railways Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. yKé EIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASI-‘UR WRIT PETITION (T) No. 6403 of2m O PETITIONER : Satyam Caterers Pvt. Ltd. & Another. VERSUS RESPGM)ENTS : Conmlissionm; Customs & Csntral Excise and Others. WRIT PETITKON UNDER ARTICH 226 OF THE CONSTm rmw (W mnm SB: Een’bie Sim Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Fresem: Dr. NKShukia.’ Senior Advocate with Shri Y.C.Shanna and Shri ManiSh Visnoai. Advocate for the petitionsrg. Shri Bhisinna Kinger. Advocate for the respondent No. 1 to $ (Passed on O9“ day of November, 2010) The petitioner impugns the audit memos ciated dateci 03.07.2010, 07.07.2010 , 07.07.2010, 10.07.2010, i6.07.2010, 17.07.2010, and the demand notices dated 16.08.2010, 01.09.2010 (Aimexui‘e P/1 Colly.) whereby the petitioners have been ca11ed 11;;011 to pay the amount aiongwith interest and penelty arid report comp1iance to 1t the office of the Superintendent. Audit, Central Excise & Service Tax. Range Burg, forthwith alogwith proof of payment. Fursuajtt to thesaid demand notice, the petitioners have fiied objection or: 24.09.2010 (Aimexure 13/13). 2. Accoréing to 1eamed counsel for the petitiouers, no decision has been taken as on date. Thus, the demand notice may he stayed ti11 the final decision on the obj ection filed- hy the petitioners, is taken 13y the respondent No. 3. The request of learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be reasonahle since the ohjection is still w? yending coasideration before the authorities concerned and no dscisicm has been taken iill (iate. Shri Kinger, learned counsel appearing fer the respondent No. 1 to 3 mlther submits that the authorities would take decision on the obj action tiled by the petitioners, at the earnest. Thus, without going into the merits of the case, the petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondent authorities that'no steps shall be taken against the petitioners on the basis of impugned demand notices dated 16.08.2010, 01.09.2010 (Aimexure P/l Colly.) till the objection filed by the petitioners, i considered and an order in accordance with law, is passed. )Ex Sd/— l Satish K. Agnihotri‘ ll l i i Judge s