1991 (2) TMI 144 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal (CEGAT) erred in not granting full stay as requested by the petitioner.
2. Whether there was a procedural irregularity in the order passed by the Collector, Central Excise, under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
3. Whether the proceedings under Section 11A were valid despite pending classification proceedings.
4. Whether the petitioner's claim for exemption under Notification No. 179/77 was correctly denied.

Analysis:
1. The petitioner appealed an order under Section 11A of the Act and sought a stay pending appeal. The CEGAT granted partial stay, requiring the petitioner to deposit 75% of the duty and granted stay for the remaining 25%, along with a stay of penalty. The petitioner contended that full stay should have been granted. The High Court noted that it does not usually interfere with interlocutory orders by CEGAT but considered the petitioner's argument of procedural irregularity. The Court found that the CEGAT's decision was based on valid reasons and dismissed the writ petition, extending the time for depositing 75% duty by four weeks.

2. The petitioner raised the issue of procedural irregularity, alleging that the Collector passed an order under Section 11A without resolving a remanded matter related to exemption from excise duty. The Court clarified that the remanded matter was distinct from the Section 11A proceedings. The previous proceedings focused on classification, while the Section 11A proceedings concerned duty liability. The Court upheld the validity of the Section 11A proceedings and rejected the claim of procedural irregularity.

3. The Court addressed the validity of initiating Section 11A proceedings while classification proceedings were pending. It noted that duty for the period before the Section 11A proceedings had already become time-barred. The Court found no illegality in commencing Section 11A proceedings alongside pending classification proceedings, emphasizing that the two processes served different purposes.

4. The petitioner's claim for exemption under Notification No. 179/77 was a key issue. The Court highlighted that the claim had been considered in both the classification proceedings and the Section 11A proceedings, with the claim being rejected in both instances. The Court emphasized that the CEGAT had already determined the product as dutiable under Tariff Item 68, leaving only the question of power usage in manufacturing open for further examination. The Court dismissed the plea of lack of competence or jurisdiction on the part of the Collector and upheld the denial of exemption under the notification.

Overall, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no grounds to interfere with the CEGAT's interlocutory order and upholding the decisions made in the Section 11A proceedings regarding duty liability and exemption claims.