9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1390X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... STICE J. B. PARDIWALA) 1. The subject matter of challenge in this writ-application is the order passed by the respondent No.2, i.e. Commissioner of Central Excise and CGST, Bhavnagar. 2. The operative part of the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 reads thus: "(1) I confirm the demand of Central Excise duty of ₹ 4,64,30,689/- [Rupees Four Crore Sixty Four Lacs Thirty Thousands Six Hundred Eighty Nine only] {₹ 4,50,78,339/- Central Excise duty + ₹ 9,01,567/- 2% Ed. Cess + ₹ 4,50,783/- 1% S&H Ed Cess] (₹ 1,26,64,324/- as Central Excise duty, ₹ 2,53,286/- as Ed Cess and ₹ 1,26,643/- as S&H Ed Cess) in respect of clandestine clearance of Fire fighting Vehicles, to be recovered from M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 35(F) of the Act, 1944. The same is with respect to the deposit of certain percentage of duty demanded or penalty imposed before filing an appeal. As provision for statutory appeal has been provided against the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, we called upon Mr. Dave to explain why we should not relegate his client to prefer an appeal before the Tribunal. Mr. Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant, submitted that three principal submissions going to the root of the matter were canvassed and have been noted by the Commissioner in his impugned order, but at the same time, they have not been dealt with in any manner. According to him, the gist of his three principal submissions is as under: "1. A Fire ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lowing decisions: (i) Manek Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Union of India 2016(334) ELT 302 (Guj.) (ii) Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Masood Ahmed Khan 2011(273) ELT 345 (S.C.) (iii) Reliance Cellulose Products Ltd. V/s. Collector of C.Ex., Hyderabad 1997(93) ELT 646 (S.C.) (iv) Standard Dye Chem. Surat- 1 and another V/s. Union of India and others 1980 (6) ELT 181 (Guj.) 6. Having regard to the submissions of Mr. Dave, let notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 24.07.2019. The respondent No.2 shall be served directly. Notice to the respondent No.1 shall go through the court. 7. Having heard Mr. Dave, the learned counsel appearing for the writ-applicant, and having gone through the materials on record, we are of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
