TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1284X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Petitioner Mr Dhaval Shah, Advocate for the Petitioner ORDER ( Per : Honourable Ms. Justice Harsha Devani ) 1. This petition is directed against the order Annexure-A to the petition, as being contrary to the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 3-A of the Central Excise Act. 2. Heard Mr. S. S. Iyer, learned advocate for the petitioner, who has placed reliance upon the decision of this court in the case of Alstom India Limited v. Union of India, 2014 (301) E.L.T. 446 (Guj.) and more particularly, to the contents of paragraph 12 thereof, which are extracted hereinbelow for ready reference:- 12. Moreover, we find substance in the contention of Mr. Ghosh, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, that in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation. The High Court was wrong in not quashing the resolution on the surmise that money might have been spent. Illegality is incurable. 3. A perusal of the record of the case as presented before this court, reveals that the order impugned in the present petition is the order-in-original No.SRT-II/ADJ-19/Dem/2016-17 dated 28.12.2016. Earlier a writ petition challenging the Orderin- original No. SRT-II/ADJ-19/Dem/2016-17 dated 28.12.2017 passed by the third respondent therein, namely, the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Division-III, Surat-II, being Special Civil Application No.5815 of 2017 came to be filed before this court by one Nilaben Jayantilal Mandviwala and M/s Koshal Monofilaments, stating that the petitioner No.1 wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... elief could not have been granted by the statutory authorities. Whereas in the present petition, though different grounds for challenging the impugned order may have been raised, there is no challenge to the constitutional validity of any provision of law or notification etc. issued by the respondent authority. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order in original on various grounds, all of which can be urged before the appellate authority. In view of the fact that there is no apparent distinction in the nature of the relief claimed in the earlier petition and this petition, the question of entertaining this petition does not arise. The above referred decision of this court would, therefore, not be applicable to the facts of the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
