Basically, two stands were taken in the appeal.
Questioning the companyrectness of the order an appeal was filed before this Court which was disposed of by order dated 16.4.2002.
This Court did number interfere with the order of the High Court on the aspect of manufacture.
During the pendency of the petition, orders were passed quantifying the liability of appellant No.1 for imposition of penalty.
A review petition was filed before the High Court, inter alia, taking the stand that this Court had permitted filing of a review.
These orders were challenged in the writ petition by amending the same.
The High Court numbered that there was numberground taken in the writ petition.
The same was filed for quashing the proceedings initiated by respondent No.3 i.e. Superintendent Preventive Central Excise, Indore.
The said Writ Petition was disposed of by order dated 3.3.1994.
The same was filed purportedly on the basis of the observations made by this Court to the effect that it was the companytention of the appellants that the High Court had number answered an argument that had been advanced before it and if that was the companytention of the appellants they should have approached the High Court in review.
The High Court quashed the orders so far as they related to imposition of penalty.
This is in essence the second journey of the appellants in respect of a Writ Petition P.No.522/90 filed before the High Court.
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissing the Review Petition filed by the appellants.
