9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order of Central Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Notice of Attachment, Further Attachment of Property. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, a Partnership Firm, engaged in manufacturing iron bars from ships' scrap without proper Central Excise license. Show cause notice dated 3rd December 1988 was issued by respondent No. 2, confirming duty amounting to Rs. 81,42,642/- and imposing a penalty of Rs. 8,25,000/- under Rule 173Q(1) of the Rules. 2. The Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal based on the decision in the case of Jay Mahakali Re-rolling Mills. The High Court had previously dismissed a petition challenging the same case. The petitioner requested to keep the current petition pending until the outcome of a related civil appeal before the Apex Court. 3. The petitioner argued that goods purchased were duty-free and thus the final product was also exempt from duty. The principal dispute was whether goods chargeable at Nil rate of duty can be considered duty paid. The petitioner contended that they had borne duty at Nil rate, while the revenue claimed otherwise. 4. The Court noted that the Tribunal's decision was based on the Jay Mahakali case, and since the challenge to that decision had failed before the High Court, there was no need to delve into the disputed facts or Tariff Act entries. The petition was to be rejected based on the prior judgment. 5. However, the Court found merit in the petitioner's contention regarding a specific item in the show cause notice falling under a notification that granted relief. The Tribunal's order was quashed and set aside to the limited extent related to this item, and the appeal was restored for this purpose. 6. The petitioner raised a limitation issue regarding the show cause notice, which was not discussed further as it was not necessary for the Court's decision. The Court emphasized that limitation is a question of fact that must be specifically raised and pleaded with evidence. 7. The petitioner cited various legal decisions to support their case on merits, but the Court found that these decisions did not provide a factual foundation to support the petitioner's arguments. Each decision was based on individual facts of the cases cited. 8. The petition was allowed partly concerning the specific item in the show cause notice, with interim relief vacated, and no order as to costs was made.
|
