B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. - (1.) This writ petition is filed by (1) L.M.L. Fibres Ltd. and (2) Prakati Synthetics Ltd., for issuance of writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the order of detention passed by respondent No. 1 (Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Division-I, Kanpur) and declaring the same ultra vires, illegal and without jurisdiction and for other incidental reliefs. In the impugned order the Assistant Collector of Central Excise recite the following facts.
(2.) An amount of more than rupees one and half crore towards Central Excise dues is recoverable from M/s. L.M.L. Fibre Ltd., Panki Industrial Estate, Kanpur in terms of order No. E/78-80/90-D, dated 8-2-1990 passed by CEGAT. The party was called upon to deposit the said amount by the Superintendent of Central Excise through his letter dated 5-6-1990 and again by another letter dated 30-8-1990. They failed to make the payment in spite of the said letters. Accordingly, in exercise of the powers vested in him by Rule 230 of Central Excise Rules, 1944, as delegated by the Collector, Central Excise by his notification dated 20-3-1991 under Rule 5 of the said Rules, the excisable goods belonging to M/s. L.M.L. Fibre Ltd., as detailed in the annexure to the order are detained until such dues are paid.
(3.) Now the petitioners' contention is that the Central Excise dues are claimed against M/s. L.M.L. Ltd. and that M/s. L.M.L. Fibre Ltd. is a different legal entity distinct from L.M.L. Ltd. It is also stated that Prakati Synthetics Ltd. is also a different legal entity from L.M.L. Fibre Ltd. The order of the CEGAT dated 8-2-1990 referred to in the detention order, it is submitted by the petitioners, is the order against L.M.L. Ltd. and not against L.M.L. Fibre Ltd., and therefore, the said dues are not recoverable from L.M.L. Fibre Ltd. It is also submitted that the goods detained do not belong to L.M.L. Fibre Ltd. as stated in the impugned order but that they belong to the second petitioner, namely Prakati Synthetics Ltd. It is, therefore, contended that the goods in question could not have been detained at all.;