Tripura High Court
M/S Tripura Ispat vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary on 17 December, 2018
Author: Sanjay Karol
Bench: Sanjay Karol, S. Talapatra
Page 1 of 4
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
WP(C)498 of 2014
M/s Tripura Ispat,
a registered partnership concern having
its office and factory at Bodhjungnagar
Industrial Growth Centre, R.K. Nagar,
Agartala, Tripura (West) and is represented
by its duly authorized Manager, Sri Vishal Singh
Solanki.
----Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary,
Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue),
North Block, Central Secretariat, New Delhi-110011
2. The Under Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue), New Delhi-
110011
3. The Secretary to the Government of India,
Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Udyog Bhawan,
New Delhi
4. The Chief Commissioner, Central Excise,
M.G. Road, Shillong-793001
5. The Assistant Commissioner,
Office of the Assistant Commissioner,
Central Excise & Service Tax Division,
Kiran Medical Hall's Building, Old R.M.S.
Choumohani, Agartala
----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. D. Senapti, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Datta, Adv.
BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJAY KAROL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL) 17/12/2018 (Sanjay Karol, C.J.) Petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs :
"a. Certiorari should not be issued setting aside and quashing the impugned Notification Nos.17/2008- Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 and Page 2 of 4 31/2008 being arbitrary, unconstitutional, unreasonable, null and void and bad in law; and/or b. Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondents to recall, rescind and otherwise forebear from giving effect to the impugned Notification No.17/2008 Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 and 31/2008- Central Excise dated 10.06.2008; and/or c. Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondents not to implement the impugned Notification No.17/2008-Central Excise dated 27.03.2008 and 31/2008-Central Excise dated 10.06.2008 against the Petitioner; and/or d. Mandamus should not be issued directing the Respondent authorities to give effect to the Notification No.29/2007-Central Excise dated 25.04.2000 as were available to them for the entire period of 10 years."
[2] It is jointly brought to our notice that certain sums stands dispensed to the petitioner and the very same impugned notification(s) stand quashed by different high courts and that Special Leave Petition(s) assailing the judgment(s) is pending consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India. It is also brought to our notice that in one such petition being WP(C) No.09 of 2015 dated 22-10-2018 titled as M/S RNB Carbides & Ferro Alloys Pvt. Ltd. versus The Union of India & Ors the Division Bench of High court of Meghalaya at Shillong has issued directions which inter alia read as under :
"12. It shall be advantageous to quote as to what the Hon'ble Supreme Court has directed on 07-12- 2015 while disposing of IA No.03 of 2015 in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.(s) 11878 of 2015 titled "Union of India & ors v. M/s Kamakhya Cosmetics & Pharmaceuticals & ors":-
Heard.Page 3 of 4
Pending further orders, we direct that subject to the petitioners releasing 50% of the amount due to the respondents in terms of the impugned judgment on the respondents' furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional commissioner, the operation of the impugned judgment shall remain stayed.
We further direct that contempt proceedings initiated against the petitioners shall subject to their releasing 50% of the amount as stated above remain stayed. The needful shall be done within four weeks from today. IA No.03 of 2015 is accordingly allowed and disposed of.
13 Learned counsel for the respondents was fair enough to state in unequivocal terms that the afore quoted directions have been applied to all unit holders who were availing benefits or had to avail benefits under the notification No.32/1999 dated 08-07-1999 and whatever will be the outcome of the SLPs same will not only apply to the respondents writ petitioners) before the Supreme Court but will also apply to all similarly situated unit holders as well as the petitioners herein.
14. In short, in view of the submissions made, the cases of the petitioners have to be governed in terms of the judgment of the Gauhati High Court and the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as already quoted above. Both learned counsel for the parties agreed that interim direction as issued or may be issued during pendency of SLP and then final judgment as may be passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court will also be applied to the petitioners herein.
15. For the stated reasons, circumstances and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties all these writ petitions are allowed, the impugned notifications No.17/2008-Central Excise dated 27-
03-2008 and No.31/2008-Central Excise dated 10- 06-2008, which are already set aside by the Gauhati High Court while allowing batch of writ petitions and then upheld while dismissing WA Nos.230 and 243 of 2009, shall also stand set aside vis-à-vis petitioners herein. However, same shall be subject to the interim direction and final decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP No.11878 of 2015."
Page 4 of 4
[3] Learned counsel for the parties jointly pray that the present petition be disposed in terms of the aforesaid directions. Ordered accordingly, clarifying that the instant parties shall be bound by the outcome of the decision rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in SLP No.1178 of 2015 titled as Union of India & Ors. versus M/S Kamakhya Cosmetics & Pharmaceuticals & Ors.
[4] As jointly prayed for, the writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
(S. TALAPATRA), J (SANJAY KAROL), CJ Sabyasachi B