9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (9) TMI 556X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that- not necessary to go into question of chargeability of duty as it would amount to pre-judging issue. Impugned order not considered instructions issued by CBE&C as in Central Excise Manual. Petitioner a Govt. undertaking. Solvency beyond doubt. Question raised needs serious consideration by Tribunal. To meet end of justice petitioner directed to execute general bond in place of pre-deposit. - 1477 of 2009 - - - Dated:- 2-9-2009 - V.C. Daga and J.P. Devadhar, JJ. REPRESENTED BY: Shri M.H. Patil, for the Appellant. Shri R. Ashokan, for the Respondent. [Judgment - P.C. : Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. Perused petition. 2. This petition is directed against the order dat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... C dated 10th June, 2005, submitted a revised bid for supply of LAN against letter dated 8th June, 2005, mentioning excise duty as nil for goods for manufacture of fertilizer and supply against International competitive Bidding against Sr. No. 301 of General Exemption No. 52 (Notification No. 6/2002-C.E., dated 1st March, 2002 as amended) provided condition No. 64 is fulfilled. M/s. RCF vide F. No. Thal/PUR/LAN/2006 dated 20th August, 2005 placed purchase order on M/s. HPCL for the period 16th July, 2005 to 15th July, 2006 claiming excise and/or customs duty at/ nil rate. 5. M/s. RCF vide letter No. Thal/PUR/NAPHTHA/06-07 dated 15th July, 2006 extended purchase order dated 20th August, 2005 given to the petitioner from 16th July, 2006 to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed this petition under Constitution of India to challenge Tribunal dated 21st April, 2009. Submissions: 11. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the Tribunal has erred in directing to pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 3.75 crore without taking into consideration the various submission made before it and without going into the merits of the case in its proper perspective. He further submits that the petitioner had complied with all the stipulations contained in Notification No. 6/2002-C.E. (Sr. No. 301) and Notification No. 6/2006-C.E. (Sr. No. 91) inasmuch as supply of Naphtha was against International Competitive Bidding and also was exempt when imported into India under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus (Sr. No. 76). According ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 crore. 12. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Ashokan while reacting has virtually conceded the fact that the petitioner is Central Government undertaking and the directions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs are binding on the Revenue. Though he tried to justify the impugned order, however, he could not take his submission to the logical end and, virtually, con ceded to the directions issued by the Board pressed into service by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Consideration: 13. Having heard both parties, having perused the petition and including impugned order, it is not necessary to go into the larger question sought to be raised hi the petition with respect to the changeability of duty sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
