IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MARCH 2008 / 27TH PHALGUNA 1929 OP.No. 10154 OF 2001(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER: PRECOT MILLS LIMKTED, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE - 18, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATION MANAGER, MR. R. MURALI. BY ADV. SRI.A.K.JAYASANKAR NAMBIAR RESPONDENTS: 1. THE UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE), NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI - 110 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, COCHIN-II, COMMISSIONERATE, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE, PALGHAT III RANGE, PALGHAT. BY ADV. SRI.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P. 10154/2001 ORDER ON CMP NO. 16282/2001 IN O.P. 10154/2001 // DISMISSED // 17.3.2008. SD/-, P.R. RAMAN, JUDGE. APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINAN E ACT, 2000. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 8.11.2000. EXT.P2(a) TRUE COPY OF THE DEMAND NOTICE DATED 8.11.2000. RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS: NIL. // TRUE COPY // P.S. TO JUDGE. KNC/- P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = O..P. NO. 10154 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner seeks a declaration that the amendments to Sections 65 and 66 of Act 32 of 1994, by Sections 116 and 117 of the Finance Act, 2000 with retrospective effect from 16.7.1997 is illegal and unconstitutional. Consequentially, he seeks to call for the records leading to Exts.P2 and P2 (a) demand notices issued to him by the third respondent and quash the same. 2. In view of the decision of the apex court in Gujarat Ambuja Cements Ltd. v. Union of India ((2005) 4 SCC 214) the challenge against the amendment as unconstitutional is no longer res integra. It has been finally decided by the apex court decision that the the amendment is valid and constitutional. So Exts. P2 and P3 cannot be quashed by this Court on that ground. However, according to the petitioner, the demand notices issued are barred by limitation. That is a factual issue which the petitioner is entitled to raise before the appellate forum. The time during which this original petition was pending will stand excluded for the purpose of counting the period of limitation. Subject to such right of the petitioner and what is stated above, this writ petition is dismissed. P.R. RAMAN, (JUDGE) knc/- :2: P.R. RAMAN, J. = = = = = = = = O.P. NO. 10154/2001 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T = = = = = = = = = 17TH MARCH, 2008.