Skip to content


Punjab Paint, Colour and Varnish Works and anr. Vs. Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise;Constitution
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Misc. Writ Petition No. 767/85
Judge
Reported in1986(7)ECC149; 1987(32)ELT656(All)
ActsCentral Excise Act, 1944 - Sections 35F; Constitution of India - Article 226
AppellantPunjab Paint, Colour and Varnish Works and anr.
RespondentCustoms, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and anr.
DispositionSuit dismissed
Excerpt:
central excise - writs under constitution--appeal--tribunal--stay of collection of duty--refusal by tribunal to grant exemption from payment of duty--not a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction--central excises and salt act (1 of 1944), section 35-f--constitution of india, article 226. - .....tribunal under the provisions contained in proviso to section 35-f of the central excises and salt act, 1944.2. the petition, in substance, is directed against an interlocutory order whereby the tribunal has refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. it is not a fit case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution. however, it will be open to the petitioners to make fresh applications to the tribunal for granting them the necessary exemption. if such applications are made, the tribunal shall dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.3. with these observations, the writ petition is dismissed summarily.
Judgment:

S.K. Dhaon, J.

1. By means of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners challenge the legality of an order dated 29th July, 1985 passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) refusing to grant exemption to the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 from depositing Rs. 1,55,507.47 and Rs. 32,230.05 respectively. The petitioner had invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal under the provisions contained in proviso to Section 35-F of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.

2. The petition, in substance, is directed against an interlocutory order whereby the Tribunal has refused to exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioner. It is not a fit case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, it will be open to the petitioners to make fresh applications to the Tribunal for granting them the necessary exemption. If such applications are made, the Tribunal shall dispose of the same on merits in accordance with law.

3. With these observations, the writ petition is dismissed summarily.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //