- (1.) The Court : Since necessary documents and orders are annexed to the application and to the Memorandum of Appeal and are before the Court, by consent of Mr. Maiti, learned advocate for the appellant and Dr. Chakraborti, learned advocate for the respondent, the appeal is treated as on day's list and is taken up for hearing. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 19th June, 2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 299 of 2015 [M/s. Shyam Steel Industries Limited v/s. The Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Durgapur Division -I & Ors.] [ : 2015 (323) E.L.T. 508 (Cal.)], whereby the learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition in terms of prayer (a) thereof. Prayer (a) of the writ petition is as under: "A writ of and/or order and/or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the respondents and each of them, their servants and/or agents to allow clearance of excisable goods manufactured/to be manufactured by the petitioners under provisional assessment in terms of Rule 7 of the said Rules and to refrain from refusing to allow such clearance on provisional basis and to act in accordance with law."
(2.) It is submitted by Mr. Maiti that in the event the writ petitioners/respondents are allowed clearance of excisable goods manufactured or goods to be manufactured by them under provisional assessment in terms of Rule 7 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, the appeal, which has been filed from the order passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) by the Department before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, will be jeopardized.
(3.) Dr. Chakraborty submits that since the applications for provisional assessment under the said Rule were kept pending and were not informed about filing of any stay application in the appeal filed before CESTAT, the respondents were compelled to file writ petition to allow clearance of goods on provisional assessment and for payment of duty on provisional basis under Rule 7 of the Rules. Submission is that since adequate reasons have been given in support of the impugned order passed, no order may be passed on the application.;