9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (1) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Independent Textile Processors ACP Determination Rules, 1998 issued under Notification 42 of 1998 dated 10.12.1998 has been struck down by this Court in the case of Beauty Dyers V. Union of India reported in [2001 (12) TMI 95 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS] - Since the issue has already been decided by this Court in the manner stated above, pending review is not a ground to keep this appeal pending on the file of this Court. Accordingly, the questions of law are academic, since the Rule under which demand has been made has been struck down. - Decided against Revenue. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.1190 of 2007 - - - Dated:- 19-12-2014 - R. Sudhakar And R. Karuppiah,JJ. For the Appellant : Mr. Vikram Ramakrishnan For ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mula to determine the production capacity on the basis of the quantity of production, but on the basis of the value fixed by the Central Government by themselves irrespective of the capacity of the factories concerned. Such a flat rate fixed by the Central Government cannot be sustained in view of the above-mentioned decisions of the Apex Court. Further, from a reading of Notification Nos. 36/1998 and 42/1998. I am not able to see any link between such notification though one is for fixing determination of production capacity and another is giving the rate of duty of excise which has to be levied and collected on the basis of the said determination of the production capacity following the rules framed under Notification No. 42/1998. Any rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the above-said decision of this Court, the Department has filed Writ Appeal Nos.2366 to 2369 of 2002, which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 18.7.2008. Against which, Special Leave Petition was filed before the Honourable Supreme Court, which was also dismissed vide order dated 06.02.2009. It appears that the Department has filed a review application against the said order before the Supreme Court, which is stated to be pending. 4. Since the issue has already been decided by this Court in the manner stated above, pending review is not a ground to keep this appeal pending on the file of this Court. Accordingly, the questions of law are academic, since the Rule under which demand has been made has been struck down. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
