2007 (3) TMI 172 - HC - Central Excise

Demand of duty Once for the period earlier and later to the period in question the revenue has already accepted the view expressed by the Tribunal and refunded the amount to the petitioner it is not justified to uphold the levy for the period in between Petition allowed

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order confirming excise duty demand and challenging the vires of a specific heading under the Central Excise Tariff Act.

Analysis:
The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorari to quash an order confirming an excise duty demand and challenging the validity of "Heading No. 73.08" under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner, a statutory body under the State Government, was involved in erecting transmission lines/towers made of iron and steel components. The petitioner received a notice to show cause for levying excise duty on the fabrication of steel structures. Despite objections and reference to a previous order, a significant excise duty demand was confirmed against the petitioner. The primary argument was that the process did not amount to the manufacture of marketable goods, citing relevant judgments. Notably, the respondent did not appear during the proceedings.

The court noted that similar issues had been previously adjudicated by the Customs, Excise, and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in favor of the petitioner for periods before and after the disputed period. Refunds were ordered based on Tribunal decisions for earlier and later periods. Given this precedent and the revenue's acceptance of the Tribunal's view, the court found no justification to uphold the levy for the disputed period. Consequently, the impugned order confirming the excise duty demand was quashed, and any duty paid was directed to be refunded to the petitioner. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.