Kali Aerated Water Works (Karaikudi) vs The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise

P.K. Misra, J.—The prayer in this writ petition is for the issue of writ of mandamus directing the respondent to cancel and return the security

bond No. 3/1995 dated 15.2.95, which had been furnished pursuant to the order passed by the High Court in C.M.P. No. 19305/94 arising out

of W.A. No. 1571/94. The relevant portion of the order passed in the aforesaid matter is to the following effect:

Heard. During the pendency of the Writ Appeals, there shall be an interim order in the following terms:-

(1) The appellants shall furnish security either in the form of immovable property or a bank guarantee in respect of the excise duty arrears for the

period from 1.4.1994 till today as may be determined by the competent authority. Security to be furnished within two weeks from the date of

determination of the duty payable by the appellants.

(2) As far as the duty payable from tomorrow is concerned, the appellants shall pay 50% of the current excise duty as determined by the

competent authority.

Thereafter, the writ appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to the original authority for fresh consideration by judgment dated

27.6.2001. Subsequently the original authority decided the matter against the present petitioner and Appeal No. 132/2002 filed by the present

petitioner was allowed by order dated 8.7.2002. Even though there was no specific order either by the High Court or by any other authority

directing the petitioner to furnish any security, the security already furnished by the petitioner continued as such. Subsequently after the appeal was

allowed and it was found that the petitioner is not liable, the petitioner filed an application for return of the bond and since no order was passed on

that, a legal notice was subsequently issued. The petitioner has now prayed for a direction to the respondent to cancel the bond and return the

same.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has submitted that after the disposal of Appeal No. 132/2002, the respondent has already filed

an appeal and it is further stated that stay petition has also been moved, but the matters are pending before the appellate authority. A perusal of the

order dated 23.12.99 in the writ appeal makes it clear that the security was directed to be given as an interim measure during the pendency of the

writ appeal. At the time of final disposal, while remanding the matter the High Court had not given any further direction that the security shall remain

alive till the disposal of the matter by the authorities. The law is well settled that interim order comes to an end along with the final decision in the

matter, unless there is a specific direction to the contrary. In the present case, when no specific direction had been given, it must be taken that the

interim order came to its natural end at the time of disposal of the writ appeal and in fact at that stage the bond should have been returned to the

petitioner. Be that as it may, the bond had not been cancelled and continued and subsequently the matter was decided against the petitioner by the

original authority, but the appeal has been allowed. Since the appeal has been allowed there is no reason as to why the bond should no t be

returned to the petitioner. Accordingly, a direction is given to the respondent to return the bond to the petitioner. This order is passed without

prejudice to the contentions raised in the appeal and the appellate authority shall decide the appeal as well as the question of stay on its own merits.

The order regarding the return of the bond shall be complied with within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the communication of

this order. The writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 7920/2003 is closed.