9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to an interlocutory order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. Analysis: The petitioner challenged an interlocutory order dated 3rd October, 1991, passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner had received a show cause notice demanding excise duty for fuel oil, which was confirmed by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad. The petitioner appealed this decision before the Tribunal and also sought dispensation of the pre-deposit condition of the duty demanded. The Tribunal allowed partial dispensation, requiring a deposit of sixteen lacs. The petitioner contended that the fuel oil was used in manufacturing fertilizer, warranting a concessional rate of duty. However, the Tribunal found no prima facie case in favor of the petitioner as the fuel oil was used for power consumption, not for manufacturing fertilizers. The Tribunal also noted that financial hardship was not pleaded by the petitioner. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no error was found in the order, and it did complete justice to the parties. The Court dismissed the petition, and the interim orders were discharged. This case involved a challenge to an interlocutory order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner sought to assail the order demanding excise duty for fuel oil used in manufacturing fertilizer. The Tribunal allowed partial dispensation of the pre-deposit condition, requiring a deposit of sixteen lacs. The petitioner argued that the fuel oil was used for manufacturing fertilizer, entitling a concessional rate of duty. However, the Tribunal found no prima facie case in favor of the petitioner as the fuel oil was used for power consumption, not for manufacturing fertilizers. Additionally, the petitioner did not plead financial hardship. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no error was found in the order, and it did complete justice to the parties. The Court dismissed the petition, and the interim orders were discharged. The key issue in this case was the petitioner's challenge to an interlocutory order passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal under proviso to Section 35F of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner contended that the fuel oil in question was used in manufacturing fertilizer, justifying a concessional rate of duty. However, the Tribunal found no prima facie case in favor of the petitioner as the fuel oil was utilized for power consumption, not for manufacturing fertilizers. Moreover, the petitioner did not plead financial hardship. The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, stating that no error was found in the order, and it did complete justice to the parties. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, and the interim orders were discharged.
|
