@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
M.S. Shah, J.@mdashWhat is challenged in these petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution is the common order dated 28-5-2007/20-6-2007 passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-III), Central Excise, Ahmedabad dismissing the petitioners'' appeals. Mr. Harin Raval, learned Assistant Solicitor General has raised a preliminary objection that there is an alternative remedy of filing appeals before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, and, therefore, these petitions may not be entertained.
2. In response thereto, Mr. Paresh Dave for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are challenging the levy of excise duty on various grounds including the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and therefore, such a challenge cannot be made before the Appellate Tribunal. It is also submitted by Mr. Dave that when Special Civil Application Nos. 14068, 15853 and 15858 of 2007 challenging the constitutional validity of the above provisions are entertained by this Court, these petitions may also be heard along with the said petitions.
3. It is true that the above-numbered three petitions involving challenge to the constitutional validity of the provisions of Section 4A of the Act are admitted. However, since the decision on the challenge raised in those petitions will be applicable to all similar cases, we do not think that there should be multiplicity of proceedings before this Court. Hence, subject to the clarification that the decision of this Court in the above-numbered three petitions on the question of constitutional validity of Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 will govern the cases of the present petitioners also, we dispose of these petitions with liberty to the petitioners to challenge the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) before the Appellate Tribunal.
4. At this stage, Mr. Dave for the petitioners points out that after the petitioners received the above order dated 28-5-2007/20-6-2007, the petitioners had filed the present petitions in July 2007 but, by now, the period of limitation for filing appeals before the Appellate Tribunal has run out and on that ground, the petitioners will face some handicap in moving the Tribunal.
5. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners had moved this Court within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and in view of the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in
6. Mr. Paresh Dave for the petitioners states that the petitioners will file such appeals within one month from today and that if the amounts of excise duty with interest thereon, if any, are not paid by now, the petitioners shall pay. such amounts of excise duty and interest thereon within one month from today.
7. In view of the above statements, we direct that subject to the condition that the petitioners deposit the amounts of excise duty and interest, if any, for the relevant period within one month from today without prejudice to their rights and contentions, the respondents shall not make any coercive recovery.
It is clarified that the Tribunal shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders on the stay applications after hearing the parties and we may not be deemed to have expressed any opinion on the question of penalty levied by the authorities. The petitions accordingly stand disposed of in terms of the above directions.
