9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K. Soundararajan for the petitioner K. Radhakrishnan, Government Advocate (Taxes), for the respondents ORDER Since, the issues involved in all the writ petitions are similar in nature, they are all taken up for final disposal and a common order is being passed. According to the petitioner, the impugned clarification issued by the first respondent and the impugned notices issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9. He had also pointed out that in the licence issued by the Central excise authorities concerned, the goods in question had been shown under entry 84.19. However, the first respondent had issued the impugned clarification, dated July 29, 2006, classifying the goods in question, under tariff entry 84.18 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. Accordingly, the goods in question are taxable at 20 per cen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the assessments, for the years 2002-03 and 2003-04, at the rate of 20 per cent and disallowing the concessional rate of tax at three per cent, adopted for the sales covered by form XVII. For the assessment year 2004-05, a pre-assessment notice had been issued proposing to assess at the rate of 20 per cent and disallowing the concessional rate claimed for the sales effected against form XVII. Agg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions and in view of the common counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the second respondent and in view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, it is seen that no notice had been issued to the petitioner before the impugned clarification, dated July 29, 2006, had been issued by the first respondent. As suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
