Civil Writ Petitions No.13059 of 2010 (O&M) -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Misc. No.111 and 4768 of 2011 and Civil Writ Petitions No.13059 of 2010 Date of decision: 1.4.2011 M/s Kap Cones (P) Limited ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Jagmohan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Senior Standing Counsel for respondents. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. Though only application seeking interim order against notice requiring petitioner to deposit Rs.25 lacs in terms of interim order of this Court dated 27.7.2010 has been listed for hearing, on suggestion of learned counsel for the parties, we proceed to hear and decide the writ petition itself. 2. The writ petition seeks quashing of insertion of Rule 12CC in Central Excise Rules, 2002, insertion of Rule 12AA in Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004 and notification dated 30.12.2006 laying down procedure for action under the said Rules and order dated 19.7.2010 passed thereunder. 3. It is not disputed that validity of impugned provisions has already been considered in order of this Court in Saviton Metplast Civil Writ Petitions No.13059 of 2010 (O&M) -2- *** (P) Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2011 (263) E.L.T. 519 (P&H) and it was held that to effectuate the levy, the impugned provisions envisaging preventive action were not beyond the scope of the statute in question. It was, however, held that action under the impugned provisions could be taken only after following the principles of natural justice. The Board envisaged as authority to take decision must itself give hearing to the affected party after furnishing a copy of the proposal/recommendation on the basis of which action was to be taken. Thus, no further order on the main issue in the writ petition is necessary. 4. As regards impugned order dated 19.7.2010, the period mentioned therein having since expired adjudication of the issue may not be necessary. The impugned order was stayed for the reasons mentioned in interim order dated 27.7.2010 giving liberty to the respondents to require such amount being deposited as may be necessary to safeguard the interest of the revenue as per the assessment of the respondents themselves. 5. The petitioner having taken the benefit of the interim order, we do not find it appropriate to interfere with the requirement of deposit challenged in the application. It is, however, made clear that deposit by the petitioner will abide by further orders in adjudication of show cause notice which is pending. 6. The Adjudicating Authority may take a final decision on the show cause notice expeditiously and as far as possible preferably within one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this Civil Writ Petitions No.13059 of 2010 (O&M) -3- *** order. The time for depositing the amount as per notice dated 15.2.2011 is extended by two weeks from today. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 01,2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge