9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Challenge against orders under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944; Classification of PVC coated paper; Contravention of Central Excise Rules; Show cause notice validity; Appeal against penalty and confiscation.
Analysis: 1. The writ petition challenged orders under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, issued against a company manufacturing PVC coated paper. The dispute centered on the classification of the product and compliance with excise duty notifications. 2. The petitioner company operated two units, one in Borivli and the other in Bhor, Pune, manufacturing PVC coated paper under brand names "Paplast" and "Muralon." The controversy arose when the Excise department alleged discrepancies in the goods cleared by the company compared to the classification list filed. 3. The show cause notice accused the company of contravening Central Excise Rules by not filing the classification list, price list, and failing to determine duty liability for the PVC coated paper cleared without payment of excise duty. The notice also mentioned the seizure of goods and issued penalties and duty recovery demands. 4. The Collector of Central Excise, Pune, found the company in violation of the rules and imposed penalties and confiscation of goods. The company contended that their goods complied with the classification list and were eligible for duty exemption under specific notifications. 5. The company appealed to the Central Board of Excise and Customs in New Delhi, which modified the Collector's order, citing leniency due to lack of evidence of intentional wrongdoing by the company. The Board directed invoking Rule 10 for duty demand instead of Rule 9(2) based on the company's bona fides. 6. The petitioner challenged the modified order in a writ petition, arguing that the show cause notice referred to Rule 9(1) but the order was based on Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J. The court held that the notice's contents were not in line with Rule 10 requirements, thus invalidating the order. 7. The court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order and allowing the Assistant Collector to invoke Rule 10 if legally permissible for duty demand. The judgment highlighted the distinction between the show cause notice under Rule 9(1) and the requirements of Rule 10 as amended by Rule 173-J.
|
