- (1.) OBJECTION against the amendment application filed today, is taken on record.
(2.) MR . Rakesh Singh Chauhan, learned Counsel for the Respondents says that as per the assurance given before the Court, the Respondents have not made any provisional attachment of the property belonging to the Petitioner but in the meantime the final orders have been passed, therefore, now the Petitioner has a statutory remedy of filing an appeal under Section of the Central Excise Act, 1944, where he can move an application for interim relief also, and as such the writ petition is not maintainable, though the amendment application for challenging the said order has also been moved. Mr. Asit Srivastava, holding brief of Mr. Akhilesh Kalra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, though does not dispute that against the final order appeal lies but says, that in view of the clarification issued by the Government of India with respect to the first proviso to Rule -8 of the Pan Masala Packing Machines (Capacity Determination and Collection of Duty), Rules, 2008, the appellate authority would not be in a position to take a different view and that this fact has been made clear by the adjudicating authority by circulating the aforesaid clarification.
(3.) AFTER hearing the parties' counsel, we are of the view that so far as the interpretation of Rule is concerned that can not be made by the Govt. of India in a manner so as to take away the discretion of the appellate authority or the adjudicating authority to apply its own mind for finding that how much duty should be charged in a given case under the rules.;