Back
1985 Supreme(All) 288
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
S. K. Dhaon, J.
PUNJAB PAINT, COLOUR AND VARNISH WORKS AND ANR. - Appellant
Versus
CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND ANR. - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 767 Of 1985
Decided On : 09/19/1985
Exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the discretion of the Tribunal in granting exemption.
Headnote:
Article 226 - Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal - The court dismissed the petition challenging the legality of an order passed by the Tribunal, stating that it was not a fit case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners were advised to make fresh applications to the Tribunal for the necessary exemption.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners challenged the legality of an order passed by the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal, refusing to grant exemption to them from depositing certain amounts.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition summarily, stating that it was not a fit case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioners were advised to make fresh applications to the Tribunal for the necessary exemption.
Issues: Challenge to the legality of the Tribunal's order and refusal to grant exemption to the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that it was not a fit case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and advised the petitioners to make fresh applications to the Tribunal for the necessary exemption.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed summarily, and the petitioners were advised to make fresh applications to the Tribunal for the necessary exemption.
( 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.
.
