1990 (10) TMI 75 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of central excise duty on Depot Service Charges and Drum Filling Expenses.
2. Validity of show cause notices issued by excise authorities.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector in passing orders for payment of excise duty.
4. Stay of proceedings in response to representations submitted by the petitioner.
5. Admissibility and disposal of writ petitions challenging excise duty demands.

Analysis:
1. The writ petitions involved the interpretation of central excise duty on Depot Service Charges and Drum Filling Expenses. The petitioner, a registered company under the Indian Companies Act, 1956, had units manufacturing various products, paying excise duty regularly. The dispute arose when the excise authorities issued notices demanding excise duty on Depot Service Charges. Despite previous orders and appeals, the excise authorities continued to issue demands, leading to the filing of writ petitions challenging the imposition of duty on these charges.

2. The validity of the show cause notices issued by the excise authorities was questioned by the petitioner. Multiple demands and show cause notices were issued, even after previous orders and appeals had been decided in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner argued that the notices were unjustified, citing earlier decisions and the law laid down by the Supreme Court and the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner sought to have these notices quashed based on the legal precedents and previous decisions.

3. The jurisdiction of the Assistant Collector in passing orders for the payment of excise duty on Depot Service Charges and Drum Filling Expenses was a crucial aspect of the case. Despite previous appeals being allowed by the Collector (Appeals), the excise authorities continued to issue demands and pass orders for payment. The petitioner contended that the orders were unwarranted, especially in light of earlier decisions and legal principles governing the assessment of excise duty.

4. The petitioner sought a stay of proceedings in response to representations submitted to the excise authorities. Despite requests to keep the hearings in abeyance until the Tribunal's decision or to hold off on passing orders, the representations were rejected. The petitioner filed writ petitions seeking relief from further proceedings until the legal issues were resolved. The High Court intervened by staying the proceedings pending the outcome of the writ petitions.

5. The admissibility and disposal of the writ petitions challenging the excise duty demands were considered by the High Court. After hearing arguments and considering the facts of the case, the Court referred to its earlier order in a similar matter where it had quashed show cause notices related to similar issues. Based on the reasoning and decision in the previous order, the High Court allowed the writ petitions, quashing the notice and order issued by the excise authorities during the pendency of the writ petitions. The Court did not award costs in this matter.