- (1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Articles 226/ 227 of the Constitution of India is for quashing of notices/letters dated 30-11-2011 and 23-2-2012, Annexures P.4 and P.5 respectively issued by respondent No. 3 whereby the petitioner-firm has been directed to make payment of the differential Central Excise duty for the period from 1-7-1999 to 31-3-2000 on account of order dated 26-8-2011, Annexure P.3 passed by this Court in GCR No. 2 of 2003. Briefly, the facts as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The petitioner is a partnership firm at Mandi Gobindgarh. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing steel products. Vide order dated 9-3-2000, the Commissioner, Central Excise, Chandigarh held the petitioner-firm liable to pay differential Central Excise Duty for the period from 1-7-1999 to 31-3-2000. The petitioner-firm filed an appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (in short, "the Tribunal") against the said order. Vide order dated 9-10-2000, Annexure P.1, the said appeal was allowed [(Tribunal)]. Thereafter, the department moved a reference petition under Section 35H of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (in short, "the Act") before this Court for framing question of law arising out of order dated 9-10-2000 vide CCES No. 73 of 2001 which was allowed and a question of law was framed vide order dated 29-7-2002, Annexure P.2. Thus, a statement of the case was called from the Tribunal which was registered as GCR No. 2 of 2003. The GCR was decided by this Court in favour of the department vide order dated 26-8-2011, Annexure P.3. Thereafter, notices Annexures P.4 and P.5 were issued to the petitioner-firm for payment of differential Central Excise duty for the period from 1-7-1999 to 31-3-2000 on account of order dated 26-8-2011 passed by this Court. According to the petitioner, the order dated 9-10-2000 has not been varied so far and thus, the department cannot claim payment of differential duty from it merely on the basis of decision in the reference petition. The petitioner, thus, impugns the notices Annexures P.4 and 5 through the present writ petition.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal had adjudicated the matter in its favour on 9-10-2000 vide Annexure P. 1 which order has not been set aside so far. According to the learned counsel, though the reference which was filed by the department was decided in their favour but unless an order in consonance with the opinion of this Court in GCR No. 2 of 2003 dated 26-8-2011 was passed by the Tribunal in terms of Section 35K(1) of the Act, no recovery could have been effected from the petitioner-firm.
(3.) Opposing the prayer, learned counsel for the revenue submitted that Annexures P.4 and P.5 have been issued to safeguard the interest of the revenue as the reference has been decided against the assessee-petitioner.;