9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichy in the respective appeals. 2. These appeals coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S.K. Choudhury, Senior Departmental Representative for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel/authorised representative in the respective appeals for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following order : 3. These three appeals have been preferred by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madurai against the orders of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichy had demanded duty under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 from each of the respondents in respect ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0/33. 1979-80 17-8-1981 ₹ 20,582.04 C. No. V/68/ 15/29/81, dated 6-2-1982 C. No. V/68/ 81, dated 20-10-1982 5. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that these cases along with others had been the subject-matter of writ proceedings in the Madras High Court; that High Court had issued an interim order of stay regarding assessments by the petitioners; the Judgment of the Court was delivered on 6-1-1981; copy of the Judgment was made ready on 14-5-1981 and delivered to the Department's counsel on 26-5-1981. As soon as the Judgment was received, the Department examined it and then preferred the claims against the respondent-firms within six months from the date of receipt of the copy of the Judgment. It was also stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lakhs during the preceding financial year." Hence the plea that the Department was awaiting the Judgment of the High Court before issuing the demands is not an acceptable one. 7. The representatives of the respondents also drew our attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Mahaboob Bani Neevi, Oceanic Match Works, Gandhinagar, Kovilpatti v. Inspector of Central Excise, M.O.R. II, Kovilpatti in writ petition Nos. 4145 to 4155 of 1975. In a somewhat similar situation where the Department was awaiting the Judgment of the Supreme Court before issuing demands and hence got delayed. Their Lordships Mr. Justice Ramaprasada Rao and Mr. Justice Ratnavel Pandian, JJ. observed that - "Initially we would like to cons ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in relation to it, no extraneous considerations can be thought of for purposes of justifying such a tax or a demand. We are of the view that the Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 262 of 1971 is the necessary information which the Revenue secured for them to act in accordance with the taxing statute, viz., the Central Excise Act and the rules framed thereunder. The decision of the Supreme Court is in the nature of information which justified further action of the Central Excise Department to get into the net taxation the issue which has annual assessment. Beyond this, the Revenue cannot take advantage of the decision of the Supreme Court." 8. Following the principles enunciated by Their Lordships, we fin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
