M.N.Roy, J. - (1.) Mr. Banerjee has filed an affidavit-in-opposition for which no leave was taken. In fact, on the last occasion, when the matter was heard in part, he wanted to file the affidavit-in-opposition, which was not allowed. At that time, of course, he submitted that under the Appellate Side Rules, such affidavit may be filed 24 hours before the hearing of the case. He also submitted that although this affidavit was filed on 20th of January, 1976, a copy of the same could not be served on the learned Advocate for the petitioner, as he is not generally available in this Court. Such submissions of Mr. Banerjee, in my view, have got no substance, since on a reference to the petition of motion, it appears that one Mr. Hemanta Kumar Roy Chowdhury, who incidentally is the registered clerk of Mr. P. K. Ghose, Advocate, has identified the petitioner. In that case, it was expected of Mr. Banerjee, to have the affidavit served in due time on the said Sri Hemanta Kumar Roy Chowdhury. He has of course stated that Mr. Roy Chowdhury was approached, but he has refused to accept the said affidavit-in-opposition. Be that as it may, since the affidavit was not served on the other side in time, I am not inclined to allow the respondents to use the affidavit in this proceeding.
(2.) The petitioner firm M/s. I.R.P. (Radio) (P) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the said firm), has impeached the orders in Annexures A., B., C and D to the petition, as made and issued by the authorities of the Central Excise Department.
(3.) The said firm, admittedly is a manufacturer of radios and has its office at 35, Chittaranjan Avenue, Calcutta and the factory at 7/V, Garcha Second Lane, Calcutta-17. They have futher alleged that apart from that, they are manufacturers of wireless receiving sets under the authority of the Central Excise licence, which has been renewed from year to year and is still subsisting.;