( 1 ) THE challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Customs, Excise and ld (Control) Appellate Tribunal who have directed that on the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs. 8 Lakhs there will be stay of realisation of pre-deposit of the duty amounting to Rs. 23,17,959. 24 and penalty of Rs. 7 Lakhs, and have further directed that the appeal would be heard on the payment of the said amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs.

( 2 ) BRIEFLY slated the facts are that the petitioner is a manufacturer of motor vehicles. The petitioner manufactures and supplies chassis to the body builders. These chassis are supplied after the excise duty has been paid and clearance obtained from the department. The body builder manufactures complete bus by fabricating the body on the chassis and, after paying a duty of Rs. 8,400. 00 , returns the bus to the petitioner. The petitioner carries out inspection of the said bus and thereafter the same is sold to various customers.

( 3 ) THE excise authorities, apart from recovering duty on the chassis manufactured by the petitioner and a fixed duty on the bus manfactured by the body builder, also demanded a duty of Rs. 8,400. 00 from the petitioner at the time when it sold the bus to its customers and the vehicle was removed from its premises. The amount demanded by way of duty from the petitioner was Rs. 23,17,959. 24 and, in addition thereto, a penalty of Rs. 7 Lakhs was also levied.

( 4 ) AGAINST the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Indore, an appeal was filed to the aforesaid Tribunal and a prayer was made for dispensing with a pre-deposit of the aforesaid duty and penalty. It was contended before the Tribunal, in support of the petitioner s application for grant of stay, that full amount of duty had been paid on the vehicle and, as no further duty was payable by the petitioner itself, the requirement of pre-deposit should be dispensed with and the realisation of the demand stayed.

( 5 ) THE Tribunal vide its order dated 27th february, 1991, observed that the merits of the case are contentious and arguable and it would not be proper for the Tribunal to make any observation on the merits as the matter was subjudice. It then observed that keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case the petitioner herein should deposit a sum of Rs. 8 Lakhs.

( 6 ) THE grievance of the petitioner before us is that it was incumbent upon the Tribunal to have examined whether the demand raised by the excise authorities against the petitioner was at all justified. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the excise authorities are realising double the amount of duty. According to the learned counsel no further duty than what has already been realised by the excise authorities from the petitioner and the body builder, was payable.

( 7 ) AT the outset it has been contended by Mr. Lokur that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain this petition. The submission of the learned counsel is that Article 323b of the Constitution of India bars the entertaining of any petition when a Tribunal has been set up under the said Article. The learned counsel submits that in the present case the Tribunal which has been set up is one under Article 323b and, furthermore, section 35c (4) specifically states that the orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final. Mr. Lokur also relies upon the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of S. P. Sampath Kumar v. Union of India and others, (1987) 1 S. C. C. 124, and contends that the jurisdiction of the High Court is completely oust.

( 8 ) IN our opinion there is no merit in the aforesaid contention. Article 323b no doubt contemplates the creation of tribunals by proper legislation and under sub-article (3), the law which is framed under Article 323b (1) can provide for the exclusion of jurisdiction of all courts except the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution.