9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (9) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rintendent) issued a show cause notice (Exhibit-B) to the petitioner inter alia claiming that the article 'X-40, dedsuti' should have been levied with excise duty, under Tariff Item No. 19I(1) of the Act and the difference of excise duty amounting to Rs. 97,800.39 should be paid for the aforesaid period. In response to the said show cause notice, the petitioner filed its objections inter alia contending that the levy already made and collected was in conformity with the circular instructions issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs (hereinafter referred to as the Board) in its circular instructions No. 18/69, dated 18-6-1969 (Exhibit-A) and therefore, it was not liable to pay the difference of duty demanded on the manufactured arti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt Collector. Before this Court issued rule nisi in the case, the petitioner withdrew the revision petition presented before Government and urged for the determination of the case on merits. Accepting the said submission, this Court on 19-8-1977 has issued rule nisi. 2. Shri K.P. Jagadeesan, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the orders made by the Collector and the Assistant Collector determining the liability under Tariff Item No. 19I(1) of the Act are based on no evidence and are manifestly illegal. Elaborating his contention Shri Jagdeesan has maintained that the evidence, if any, on which the authorities have recorded their findings viz. (i) Sample of bleached variety and (ii) grey warehouse register were totally irrel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... exercised the power of revision, was only a power then conferred on it and was not a right given to the party. When Government unduly delayed the disposal of a simple revision petition before it and the original authority was pressing for the payment of the differential duty, the petitioner alluding to those facts has approached this Court. As on today, Government does not even exercise the power of revision under the Act. As is well known, existence of a legal remedy and its availment do not really touch on the jurisdiction of the Court and it is only one of the factors, to be taken into consideration, in particular, before this Court issued rule nisi. 7. When this Court on an examination of the facts and circumstances of the case and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ivetting their attention to this aspect of the matter and virtually brushing aside this serious contention and in a way accepting the case of the petitioner that what had been collected as sample was not really relevant, have held otherwise against the petitioner on the basis of a register called 'grey warehouse register' (hereinafter referred to as the register). Unfortunately this register, which has been relied on by the authorities was not available even when the authorities determined the matter and in any event is not available today. Before the appellate authority, the petitioner had specifically contended that the reliance placed on the register to which it bad no opportunity to state its case, was violative of the Principle of audi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
