Amitava Lala,J. - (1.) The case is unique one. The petitioner No. 1 is a public limited company. The petitioner No. 2 is a director and representative of such company. They are the merchant-exporters of eight diesel hydraulic truck mounted cranes (hereinafter called as the goods) to Bangladesh. The party respondents are basically (a) Central Excise Authorities; (b) Customs Authorities; (c) manufacturer; and (d) financiers of the goods. Financiers are not contesting the dispute. Therefore, there is existence of quadrangular dispute in between others which are inseparable in nature. A Division Bench of this Court is disposing an appeal from an interim order passed by a Single Bench of this Court also observed the same. Therefore, the dispute cannot be said to be dispute of a private nature which cannot be taken into account in the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Public law element is involved herein.
(2.) The short compass of the dispute is that the petitioners with the help of the financiers, purchased the aforesaid goods from the respondent No. 6, a manufacturing company of India. According to them, the price includes excise duties. Therefore, the respondent No. 6 is liable to pay excise duties, if any, to the Central Excise Authorities. The goods were registered under the appropriate motor vehicles, authority in India. The Oil and Natural Gas Commission Limited (hereinafter called as 'ONGC Ltd.') a Government company made an agreement with the petitioners in India to deploy such goods for the completion of a project of M/s. Bangladesh Gas Fields Co. Ltd. (a company of Petro-Bangla) in Bangladesh, which will be brought back to India after completion of the contractual work. Necessary permission was sought from the Reserve Bank of India which was duly granted by them. Such type of movement of goods from India to a country and coming back is called 'export-cum-reimport' as per technical nomenclature of the customs authorities. Such words in the nature of export-cum-reimportation will be available in every necessary documents for movement i.e. permission of Reserve Bank of India, proforma invoices for purchase, bills of export, etc.
(3.) The respondent No. 6, the manufacturer of the goods did not pay the excise duty before the removal of the goods from the factory but executed bonds in favour of the Central Excise Authority for a total sum of Rs. 75,00,0007- to secure the excise duty payable by them. Such respondent supposed to execute and submit and accordingly submitted necessary applications under prescribed forms known as AR 4 forms to be respondent No. 7 i.e. the Superintendent of Central Excise describing the petitioner company as merchant-exporter and themselves as manufacturer with particulars of goods and giving their appropriate Central Excise registration number. Such AR 4 forms prescribed certain modalities which are required to be fulfilled when the goods are to be taken to a different country for the purpose of doing the needful. Under AR forms there are two columns for the purpose of certification of the Central Excise authorities and the Customs authorities. The Central Excise authorities have certified that duty has been paid on the goods by furnishing bonds by them. The Customs authorities certified that such bonds are to be released on production of reimportation certificate from the Customs authorities or realisation of duty.;