Madras High Court
Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. vs Assistant Collector, C. Ex., Madras-Iv on 21 March, 1994
Equivalent citations: 1994(74)ELT826(MAD)
ORDER
1. The Writ Petitions lie in a narrow campus and after hearing the learned counsel for the respondents, it is agreed between the parties that the same can be disposed of by saying what seems to be the obvious. In these three Writ Petitions, the price lists have been provisionally assessed disallowing certain abatements claimed by the assessee. After saying so, the order proceeds to say that the assessees are requested to furnish the necessary bonds with sufficient securities/sureties, if any for the provisional assessments ordered in the above manner. The petitioner apparently had an apprehension that this would amount to the authority holding that the price-list as furnished by the assessees were not acceptable to the proper officer and therefore a question of payment under protest may arise under rule 173 (Sic.). It is made clear that such a payment under protest does not arise and what is needed from the petitioner is the furnishing of proper bonds, as required under Rule 9-B of the Central Excise Rules (SRP) (if such bonds have not already been furnished). Having made this position clear, no further orders are necessary in these Writ Petitions and the Writ Petitions are disposed of accordingly.