9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1997 (3) TMI 109 - HC - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Challenge to orders of Assistant Collector, Collector of Central Excise, and CEGAT 2. Validity of Notifications 36/87 and 124/87 under Article 14 of the Constitution Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought to challenge the orders passed by the Assistant Collector, Collector of Central Excise, and CEGAT. The dispute arose regarding the payment of Central Excise duty on cement produced by the petitioner's factory. The Assistant Collector had raised a demand for duty, which was contested by the petitioner. Subsequent appeals to higher authorities, including the Collector of Central Excise and CEGAT, did not rule in favor of the petitioner. However, the High Court noted that the petitioner had the option to file a regular appeal under Section 35L(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 against the CEGAT's order, which the petitioner had not pursued. Consequently, the High Court held that the challenge to the CEGAT's order could not be entertained at that stage. 2. The second issue pertained to the validity of Notifications 36/87 and 124/87 under Article 14 of the Constitution, alleging discrimination. The Notifications provided concessions in excise duty for certain categories of cement units based on the production commencement dates. The petitioner contended that the proviso 'during the aforesaid period' in the Notifications was ultra vires and violated Article 14. However, upon examining the Notifications, the High Court found no substantial evidence to support the claim of discrimination. The court opined that the Notifications outlined specific criteria for granting concessions, and the denial of benefits to the petitioner was based on the Assistant Collector's assessment of eligibility. Consequently, the High Court concluded that the Notifications were not discriminatory and upheld their validity. In the final judgment, the High Court dismissed the petition, stating that there was no merit in the petitioner's claims. The court also directed the refund of the security amount, if deposited, to the petitioner.
|
