OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR M/S. RAJSHREE ALLOYS INDIA LTD v. UNION OF INDIA (DB CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 14909/10.) DATE OF JUDGMENT & Ors.

PRESENT HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY RASTOGI Mr. R.N. Mathur for the appellant. BY THE COURT : Heard Shri R.N. Mathur learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition has been filed as against the order dated 7.10.2010 passed by the office of the Dy. Commissioner, Central Excise Division-I, Jaipur. The petitioner applied on-line for surrender of registration certificate. The Dy. Commissioner in its communication observed that the petitioner has not applied for surrender of registration certificate in Annex-3 as prescribed under part 6 of CBEC'S Excise Manual of the supplementary instructions. It has also been observed in the order dated 7.10.2010 of the Dy. Commissioner that 2 there is confirmed demand of Rs. 1,69,73,061/- pending against the petitioner. Petitioner has been required to deposit the aforesaid amount with interest at the rate applicable and without the deposit of the said amount the surrender application could not be accepted.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that with respect to the aforesaid demand of Rs. 1,69,73,061/- approximately ten appeals are pending consideration before the appellate authority and in those appeals interim stay application have also been filed which have not been decided. The petitioner was ready to deposit the bank guarantee of the aforesaid amount. Consequently, the surrender application ought to have been processed. Counsel has also submitted that for the last two years the appeals are pending consideration and there is no hope of getting speedy justice at the end of the appellate authority. Hence the instant case, this court should interfere in the matter. The impugned order has been passed under Section 9 of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The appeal lies against such an order under Section 35 of the Central 3 Excise Act, 1944, hence we are not inclined to make interference outrightly in the writ petition in the aforesaid order which is appealable.

Apart from it, the demand of Rs. 1,69,73,061/- is subject matter of the various appeals pending before the appellate authority and it is stated at the bar that interim applications seeking stay have been preferred and they have not been decided so far. It is open to the petitioner to draw the attention of the appellate authority and on doing so, it is expected of the appellate authority to decide the applications as expeditiously as possible. The petitioner may if so advised seek redress under the appropriate provision before the concerned authority. In view of the aforesaid, we are not inclined to interfere in this writ petition. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. (AJAY RASTOGI ) J. ( ARUN MISHRA ) Actg.CJ. mrg.