1997 (3) TMI 107 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to order passed by Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal.
2. Allegation of clearing pre-budget stock without payment of duty.
3. Adjudication by Assistant Collector and imposition of duty and penalty.
4. Appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent dismissal.
5. Appeal before Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal and its dismissal.
6. Contention regarding levy of central excise duty on goods manufactured before 1-3-1994 but sold after.
7. Availability of alternative remedy under Section 35G of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 for reference to High Court.

Analysis:
The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad heard a writ petition seeking to quash an order dated 6-12-1996 passed by the Customs, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi. The petitioners, engaged in manufacturing pesticides/insecticides, were accused of clearing pre-budget stock without paying duty between 1-3-1994 to 28-5-1994. The Assistant Collector adjudicated the case, confirming duty payment of Rs. 11,94,200/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 5,000/-. Subsequent appeals before the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Appellate Tribunal were unsuccessful, leading to the writ petition challenging the tribunal's order.

The main argument put forth by the petitioners was that goods were manufactured before 1-3-1994 when no central excise duty was levied. They contended that tax is on manufacture, not on sale. However, the respondents argued that duty is payable on goods manufactured before 1-3-1994 but cleared for sale after that date. The High Court highlighted the provision of Section 35G of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, allowing for reference to the High Court on questions of law arising from an order. The court noted that unless the issue pertains to the rate of duty or value of goods for assessment, an application for reference may not be maintainable.

Ultimately, the court found that the petitioners had an alternative remedy available under Section 35G for reference to the High Court. As the issue did not involve questions related to the rate of duty or value of goods, the court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the availability of the statutory remedy for seeking reference to the High Court.