9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 704X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se, interest and penalty should not be imposed upon the petitioner under Rule 25 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. 3. As per the said show cause notice issued to one of the petitioners RSWM in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1242/2007, the petitioner Company is engaged in manufacture of cotton yarn and Man Made Yarn of Synthetics and artificial staple fibers classifiable under Chapters 52, 54 and 55 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, and appear to have not paid duty of excise amounting to ₹ 2709213/- (CENVAT ₹ 2656091/- + Education Cess ₹ 53122/-) on their finished goods, by wrongly availing the benefit of Notification No. 30/2004 CE dt. 09.07.2004, during the period from 01.11.2005 to 31.03.2006. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tended by learned Counsel for the respondents that the circular dt. 01.02.2007 is clarificatory in nature and the same is not issued to dilute the law laid down by the Supreme Court as alleged by the petitioners as the show cause notice has been issued prior in time and it is issued mainly on the ground that the petitioners have wrongly taken the benefit of credit by taking shelter of the notification dt. 01.02.2007. It is also submitted that in this view of the matter, this writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and this Court should not exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction while entertaining this petition at show cause notice stage. Learned Counsel for the respondent Department further submitted that it is a case where the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under: 1. These appeals are against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dt. 21.01.2000. The respondent Company were clearing their gods (sic goods) on the basis that they were leather sheets within the meaning of Section 14 of the Central Sales Tax Act. A show-cause notice was issued to them claiming that the items cleared by them were not leather sheets and that a higher duty was required to be paid. The respondents filed a writ petition challenging the issuance of the showcause notice. The High Court ignoring the well-settled law that against a mere issuance of a show-cause notice a Court should be reluctant to interfere, purported to go into the facts and quashed the show-cause notice in a mechanical way. In our view, the approac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt has held that the manufacturer availing credit as provided by exemption notification, at the time of clearance of goods and thereafter, he suo motu reversed it and paid the duty to avail exemption after several months when he claimed refund of Modvat credit, he would not be entitled to exemption. However, in our view, this aspect is also required to be considered by the adjudicating authority while taking final decision. Suffice it to say that this is not a case in which this Court would like to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction by quashing the show cause notice itself. 11. Mr. Johari has relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai-I v. Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd., Appeal (Civil) No. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... quired to be noted that the aforesaid decision is in connection with a particular circular and so far as the facts of the present case are concerned, from a reading of the show cause notice itself, it cannot be concluded that the show cause notice has been issued without any basis or without any reason. It is for the authority to consider whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid ratio is applicable.
13. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petitions have no substance and the same are dismissed with costs which is quantified at ₹ 25,000/- each and each of the petitioner shall deposit the same before the adjudicating authority within a period of two weeks from today. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
