9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (2) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Court allowed the petitioners extension of time for furnishing bank guarantee on 23rd September, 1975, 21st November, 1975, 4th March, 1976 and again on 8th August, 1977. At the time of granting extension on 8.8.1977 it was made clear that time was being extended till 9th September, 1977 and no further extension will be granted. On 9th September, 1977, however, the bank guarantee was not furnished. The matter was mentioned in Court and the petitioner was given liberty to furnish cash security of Rs. 25,000/- by 12.9.1977. 2. On 21st May, 1981 the rule came up for hearing and P. K. Banerjee, J. discharged the rule on the ground that the writ petition was premature. The rule was directed against an order passed in appeal against deman ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e product manufactured by the petitioners. M/s. Guardian Plasticote Limited, Ramour, District 24-Parganas, the petitioners manufactured and cleared plastic coated cotton fabrics on payment of duty under T.C. 19(1)(2) for some period of time. A show cause notice was issued on 6.6.1972 about short payment of central excise duty amounting to Rs. 1,07,957.56P. 6. It is claimed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, that on physical verification of the cotton fabrics and chemical test it was noticed that the coating was 100% polythene and was applied on the cotton fabrics by extrusion technique. The polythene film was fixed to the base fabrics and could not be easily separated. After analysing the fabric, and the technique of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d it appears that the order of the Appellate Collector was not erroneous. Under these circumstances, the rule is discharged. All interim orders are vacated. There will be no order as to costs. 9. After the case was fixed the matter was mentioned by Mr. Asoke. Dey, learned Advocate for the petitioners and I gave liberty to the petitioners to address the Court before the judgment was delivered. No argument has been advanced on behalf of the petitioners, but a prayer was made for further adjournment on the ground of the Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners. I have decided not to allow this prayer. 10. If the petitioners have deposited a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand), the respondents would be at libe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
