TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... this writ petition. 2.Briefly stated the background facts, giving rise to the petition are : The first petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of Polyester Yarn. The officers of the Directorate General of Anti-Evasion visited the office of the said petitioner and one M/s. Haryana Petro Chemicals Ltd., petitioner No. 2 herein, and seized bill discounting documents. The said bills of discounting were allegedly in the name of one M/s. Globe Synthetics Ltd. and petitioner No. 1. It was alleged that petitioner No. 1 had clandestinely removed Polyester Yarn from its premises, valued at Rs. 2,06,41,358/- without payment of duty under these bill discounting documents during the period from September 1994 to April 1995. After obtaining reply t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etics Ltd. was deleted by the Tribunal, inter alia, on the ground that there was no corroborative or supportive evidence to show that said concern had actually manufactured and removed the goods without payment of duty from their factory to petitioner No. 2 herein. It is submitted that the Tribunal having already examined the merits of the demand created by the department on same set of documents in the case of M/s. Globe Synthetics Ltd. [2003 (159) E.L.T. 228 (T)], and having come to the conclusion that there was no basis for it, it was not justified in ignoring its own final adjudication and directing the petitioners to deposit the afore-noted amount. It is contended that in view of the said order, the additional demand created against th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the case of M/s. Globe Synthetics Ltd. was based on different material and, therefore, decision of the Tribunal in that case has no relevance insofar as order of pre-deposit in the case of the petitioners is concerned. 7.In the present petition, we are not concerned with the merits of the controversy as to whether the demands, as confirmed against the petitioners, could be sustained on the basis of the bill discounting documents recovered from the premises of the petitioners. This issue will be gone into by the Tribunal when the appeals are taken up for hearing on merits. The only question with which we are concerned at the moment is whether the Tribunal has exercised the discretion vested in it under Section 35F of the Act, in directin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration of the instant case, in the light of the material placed before us, briefly referred to above, we are of the view that the impugned order lacks proper application of mind by the Tribunal on the facts of the case inasmuch as the order does not make even a passing reference to the plea of the petitioners with regard to the view expressed by the Tribunal in Globe Synthetics Ltd.'s case. We may, however, hasten to add that we are not for a moment suggesting that the said decision of the Tribunal was or would be binding on the Tribunal while examining the case of the petitioners, and this aspect will be considered at the time of final adjudication by the Tribunal but what we propose to emphasize is that the order of the Tribunal do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
