1991 (8) TMI 89 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of Notification under Section 11C of the Central Excises and Salt Act.
2. Validity of demand for excise duty not covered by the Notification.
3. Finality of earlier order and obligation to pay the balance amount demanded.

Analysis:

Issue 1: The Division Bench in the earlier writ petition interpreted the Notification issued under Section 11C of the Act, holding that the petitioners were entitled to exemption from payment of excise duty for a specific period. The Notification covered a substantial part of the period mentioned in the Assistant Collector's order.

Issue 2: The excise authorities demanded a balance amount not covered by the Notification from the petitioners, challenging which the present petition was filed. The court found no merit in this challenge as the demand was part of the original demand, had undergone due process, and was not covered by the exemption Notification.

Issue 3: The court emphasized that the petitioners were liable to pay the demanded amount, which was a small balance of the original demand. The court rejected the attempt to challenge the legality of the demand again, stating that all contentions had been considered and adjudicated upon previously, and the petition was seen as a delay tactic.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the demand for the balance amount of excise duty not covered by the exemption Notification. The court emphasized the obligation of the petitioners to pay the demanded amount and discouraged repeated challenges to delay payment.