ff^ ^s^ HIGHCOURTOFCHHAmSGARH:BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI JAGDISH BHALLA, Ag. CJ WritPetiCon (T»No.70B4OT2007 PETiTIONERS 1. 2. ly 3. M/s ABS Steels Limited, 137-A Light Industrial Area, Bttilai - Through its Director, Anil Kumar Agrawal, S/o Late Shri B.L Agrawat, Aged about 45 yeare, R/o.' 10, Old Motilal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Smt. Llma Agrawal, W/o Shri Anil Kumar Agrawal, Aged about 43 years, Director, M/s ABS Steels Limited, 137- A Light (nciustrial Area, Bhilai, R/o 10, OldMotilal Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Durg(C.©) Smt. Rama Agrawal, W/o Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Aged about 36 years, Djrector, M/s ABS Steels Limited, 137- A Light Ind.ustrial Area, Bhilai, R/o 10, Old Motiial Nehru Nagar, Bhilai, Distt. Darg(C.G.) . , : »ERSUS RESPONDENTS ^s 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. yriionoF^lndja — Through The Seocetary, Mii'iJsffysifiRnanee, New Delhi • The Member, CentFal Board of Excise and Customs, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi. : The .Chief Commissioner (Bhdpal Zone), Customs and Central Excise, 48 Administrative Area, >, Arera Hills, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) The Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Centrai Exoise Building, Dhamtari Road, Tikra Para, Raipur(C.G.) The Deputy Commissioner, Customs and Central Excise, Division—II, Bhilai, Distt. Durg(C.G.) Writ Pefition under ArfiGle 226 of fhe Constitution of India Present: ShnP. Diwakar, Sr. Advocatewith ShriAdil Minhaj, co'unsel forthe petitioners. : • ' : Shri Ma.nish Sharma, counselforUnion oflndia. ORALORDER (Passedon501December,2007) A preliminary &bjeotion has been raised regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the alternative effioaojous ren-iedy offiling appeal is available to the petitioner under Clause (c) ofsub-SeGtion (1) of BB •±^:'^'f^^ 'Sf^^^^Ks SSSWSKS&S^- \.L fr'ev^^ y 2-- Section35-BofCentralExciseAct, 1944. Ithasbeen submitted on behalfof Union of India that the order has been passed byttie Member, Central Board of Exoise and Customs.' He relies upon the part of the notification under CentralExciseRuleswhichreadsasfollows:- . "[2] Evasion — Deterent actiort against tax evaders-Member (C.E.),C.B.E. & C. authorized to issue restriction order.- tn pufsuance of rule 12 CC of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, and rute 12AA of the CENVAT Credit Rules, 2004, made underthe Central ExciseAct, 1944(1 of1944), theCentral Board of Excise and Customs authorizes Member (Cenfral Excise), Central Board of Excise and Customs to issue orders in terms of Notjfioation No. 32/2006-C.E. (N.T), dated 30"' December, 2006." °(3) An officer authorized by the Board shall examine the recommendations received from the Chief Commissioner of Central Excise or Director General of Central Excise Intelligence and issue an order specifying the type offacilities to be withdrawnor type of restrictions imposed, along v/ith the period for which said facflities will not be availabte 6r the period for which the restrictions shall be operative." Learned oounsel for the petitioners subm'its that the impugned order has not been passed under the provisions of law. However, he did .not indicat^ that under which provision of law the order has been passed. In the light of above discussion, it has been submitted that the Member, Board is authorized to pass an order on behalf of Central Board of Excise and Customs. Therefore, the order passed by the Member amounts tothe order passed by fheBoard. • 1 do not.find foroe in the argument of the petitipners. The writ petition is thusdisposed ofon theground of availability of aiternative remedy. Sd/- Ag. Chief Justice S^SiSS; WiSSSK SSsSSS3isw ^^i^&&^^&sg^M^^ iSSBSS^MSBSBS s^, RK '^ T