Utkal Automobiles Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 July, 2011

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Jharkhand High Court

Utkal Automobiles Limited vs Union Of India & Ors on 13 July, 2011

Bench: Jaya Roy

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                        W.P.(T) No. 3812 of 2011
        Utkal Automobiles Ltd., Jamshedpur         ...           Petitioner
                                 Vrs.
        Union of India & Ors.                             ...    Respondents
                                 ------

CORAM:          HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
                HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE JAYA ROY
                                 ------
For the Petitioner:                  M/s. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate
For the Respondents :                Mrs. Rubi Parveen, Advocate

                                 ------
       Order No.02                        Dated: 13th of July, 2011.

The defects pointed out by the office are dispensed with. The W.P.(T) No. 03812 of 2011 be registered as regular writ petition.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The grievance of the petitioner is that in violation to the binding Circular No. 906/26/2009-CX., dated 03.12.2009 issued by the Government of the India inviting attention of all the commissionerates that once an order has been passed on issue like classification / valuation etc., in that case, all subsequent removals must follow the said order even though appeal of the assessee against the said order is pending.

By this Circular, it has been further clarified that in case of removal of goods without confirming to the said order and if the goods have been seized on the ground that these have been cleared in violation of the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority for that it is clarified that the said Circular nowhere provided for seizure of goods, which are cleared not in conformity with the adjudication order and when the appeal against the said order is pending. Then it has been observed that in such cases protective show-cause notices should be issued to safeguard the revenue and seizure of goods only for the aforesaid reason should not be effected.

According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, in violation of the said Circular the authorities are seizing the vehicles of the writ petitioner.

The learned counsel for the petitioner also submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Central Excise Vadodara-vs.-Dhiren Chemical Industries reported in 2002(139) E.L.T.3 (S.C.) held that such circular issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue are binding upon the subordinate authorities.

If so is the position, then the petitioner can certainly approach the authority concerned and produce the copies of the Circular and can cite the said judgement before the said authority who may pass appropriate order in accordance with law and the petitioner admittedly has approached this Court without approaching the said authority, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition.

This writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to first approach the concerned authority, who may pass appropriate order by considering the arguments raised by the petitioner. If any representation is submitted by the petitioner, then the said representation may be decided by the concerned authority within a period of two weeks from the date of submission of the representation.

(Prakash Tatia, A.C.J.) (Jaya Roy, J.) D.S./Sudhir

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Jharkhand High Court