TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (7) TMI 17
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n WPT No. 8/2018. 3. The two petitioners herein are engaged in the manufacturing of rolled products like Angles, Channels, CTD Bars, MS TMT Bars. All of these items are falling under Chapter 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. 4. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that, on 12-4-2012, the petitioner's premises was raided by the respondent department and the entire premises was searched. He further submits that, the said search was conducted without any search warrant being issued by the competent authority i.e. required under the provision of the Central Excise Act. It was also the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that, the action of the respondent department is in total contravention and disre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....se an anti-dated order. Under both the circumstances, the mala fide on part of the department is writ-large. It was further contended by the counsel for the petitioner that, in spite of the clear directions given by this Court in WPT No. 47/2017, the department did not care to permit the petitioners to move an proper application as directed by the High Court and that before the petitioner could move a suitable application, the authorities circumvented the proceedings by passing a final order which thus is not sustainable. It was further the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that, even otherwise, the entire search and seizure proceedings is in total contravention to the statutory provision and thus stands vitiated. According to hi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mind the directives given by the High Court in WPT No. 47/2017 while adjudicating the matter afresh. Therefore, nothing further remains to be adjudicated upon at this juncture and the petition deserves to be rejected. 6. Having heard the counsel for the parties and on perusal of record at the outset it would be relevant to refer to the relief clause of WPT No. 47/2017 filed by the petitioners before this Court. The plain reading of the relief clause would reveal that, the petitioners in the said writ petition had raised the identical relief as that is made in the present writ petition i.e. challenge to the search and seizure proceedings. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the relief clause is produced hereinunder :- "10.1&e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mination. It would also reveal that, since, the petitioners at the time of disposal of the said writ petition had only pressed upon for a chance to cross-examine the witnesses, the High Court had acceded to the said prayer and disposed of the said writ petition. 10. Having once given up the relief of the challenge to the search and seizure, the subsequent challenge to the same is not permissible and the petition would be hit by a constructive res judicata, the petitioners would be estopped from filing the fresh writ petition for the same cause of action and on the same grounds. 11. It is a case infact where the petitioner has abandoned his other reliefs that they had prayed in the said writ petition and abandonment of the said r....