Bombay High Court
Shree Marathwada Paper Mills Pvt ... vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Central ... on 23 June, 2017
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
1 11-WP-8593.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.8593 OF 2005
Shree Marathwada Paper
Mills Pvt. Ltd.,
Through its Managing Director
Ashok Jagannath Patil,
Age : 45 years,
r/o. Village Rohital,
Tq. Georai, Dist. Beed ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. Asstt. Commissioner of Central
Excise, Nanded District, Nanded
Near Airport Road, Nanded
2. Commissioner of Central Excise,
Town Center, CIDCO, Aurangabad
3. Union of India ..Respondent
--
Mr.S.V.Dixit, Advocate for petitioner
Mr.D.S.Ladda, Standing Counsel for respondent
nos.1 to 3
--
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE AND
SANGITRAO S. PATIL, JJ.
DATE : JUNE 23, 2017
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER T.V. NALAWADE, J.):
The petition is filed for the relief of
quashing of the Attachment Panchnamas dated
2 11-WP-8593.odt
06.04.2004, 14.09.2004 and 02.06.2005 in respect
of properties of the petitioner, for recovery of
the amount of excise duty which was demanded by
the respondents.
2. The petition is filed on the ground that
proceedings were filed by the petitioner with
B.I.F.R. on 06.08.2006, contending that it was a
sick industry. During pendency of the said
proceedings, no action could have been taken. In
the body of the present petition, it is expressed
that the petitioner was ready to deposit the
amount of Rs.17,58,950/- in installments.
3. This Court on 03.08.2007 granted interim
relief in terms of prayer clauses 'D' and 'E'.
Thus, the petitioner got a blanket protection. The
respondents could not take further action due to
the stay granted by this Court.
4. The submissions made and the record
produced by the learned Counsel for the respondents
3 11-WP-8593.odt
shows that the proceedings filed before the
B.I.F.R. came to be disposed of on 08.05.2013. In
an ordinary course, the action which was necessary
for the petitioner, was to inform this Court about
the disposal of the said proceedings before the
B.I.F.R. No such step was taken by the petitioner.
Today, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has
argued a technical point that when the proceedings
were pending before the B.I.F.R., the order of
attachment could not have been made and so that, it
may be set aside.
5. In view of the above, we observe that the
demand of excise duty itself could have been
challenged before the Tribunal, but that demand was
not challenged and attachment order was challenged
in this Court. When the demand order is still
there, it cannot be called as an illegal at present
and further when the petitioner had undertaken to
make payment of the said amount in the present
petition, which was to the effect that he
4 11-WP-8593.odt
will deposit the amount by the end of December,
2005 and January, 2006, this Court is not expected
to stay only the attachment order. The petitioner
has virtually misused the process of law and the
recovery was virtually stalled due the interim
order passed by this Court.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that the fact of disposal of the
proceedings before the B.I.F.R., was not informed
to him by his client. In our view, this cannot be a
ground to adjourn the present petition or to give
some more time to the petitioner.
7. In view of the above facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court holds that
the interim relief cannot be continued and present
proceedings cannot be kept pending.
8. The Writ Petition stands dismissed. The
interim relief granted earlier stands vacated.
5 11-WP-8593.odt
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is
not aware as to whether, his client has deposited
the amount which was to be deposited by the
petitioner as per the undertaking given in this
Court.
10. This point is kept open and the respondent
will consider the same.
[SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.] [T.V. NALAWADE, J.]
kbp
