9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (7) TMI 94X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Government of India published Notification No. 105/80 dated June 19, 1980 exempting goods falling under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, in respect of the first clearances of the goods for home consumption by or on behalf of a manufacturer from one or more factories upto a value not exceeding Rs. 30,00,000/- cleared on or after the 1st day of April in any financial year from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon. The exemption is available subject to the conditions set out in the Notification. 2. The petitioner No. 1 Company by Classification List No. 1 dated May 11, 1981 filed under Rule 173B of the Rules claimed benefit of exemption under the Notification. The petitioners were permitt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent No. 2 - Assistant Collector - by order dated February 8, 1982 rejected the claim. The respondent No. 2 by another order dated March 27, 1982 reiterated his earlier decision and this action on the part of the respondents has given rise to the filing of the present petition on April 29, 1982 under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Shri Ganesh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that in view of the decision recorded by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Narendra Engineering Works v. Union of India (1981 Excise Law Times 859), it is necessary for the respondents while computing the value of the clearance of a job work to take into account only the cost which was incurred and has to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would be due from the petitioners. 4. Shri Ganesh also submitted that if the petitioners are doing job work, the value for the purpose of assessment should only be job charges and not the value of the processed material. The submission of the learned Counsel cannot be accepted in view of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court and to which I was the party, in the case of New Shakti Dye Works Pvt. Ltd. and Mahalakshmi Dyeing Printing Works and Others v. Union of India and Another reported in 1983 Excise Law Times 1736. The Division Bench while considering the claim of the processors of grey fabrics held that while processors get grey cloth on which the duty is already paid, they are required to pay excise duty on the basis of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uding therein the value of the raw materials supplied to the petitioners to pay the full amount of excise duty on such excess clearances. 4. Petitioners to keep alive their existing Bank guarantee under the order of this Hon'ble Court dated June 29, 1982, until the disposal by the Supreme Court of India of Civil Appeal No. 1822 of 1982 in the case of Union of India v. Narendra Engineering Works. In the event of the Union of India succeeding in the said Appeal No. 1822 of 1982, and the judgment of this Court in the case of Narendra Engineering Works being reversed by the Supreme Court, the respondents shall be at liberty to enforce the said bank guarantee, after giving one week's notice to the petitioner. In the event of the said Appeal No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
