9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (10) TMI 60X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. were licensed for manufacturing of excisable goods. They received processed fabrics from M/s. DIOR International Private Ltd., a sister concern of the petitioner, on payment of Central Excise Duty. Such fabrics used to be converted into various other items, namely, pillow covers, bed sheets, bed covers, table cloth etc. falling under T.I. 68. Cotton doubles bed sheets, cotton single bed sheets, cotton top covers and cotton table linen etc. were also manufactured by the petitioner company. The petitioner submitted a classification list dated 4-4-1984 desiring that the classification of pillow covers and Rajai covers be done under, T.I. 68 and that they be allowed to avail exemption under Notification No. 77/83 dated 1-3-1983 as amended b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat goods finally manufactured by the petitioner fell under Item 19 by virtue of the fact that they were specifically covered under the definition of cotton fabrics and as such question of any double assessment did not arise in the case. 4. As against the judgment and order of the Collector, Central Excise (Appeals) dated 8-1-1985, the petitioner went up in appeal before the CEGAT, special Bench 'D', New Delhi. The Tribunal by its order dated 22-7-1985 dismissed the appeal holding that there was no merit in the same, as a result whereof the impugned orders were upheld. The Tribunal took the view that the process undertaken by the petitioner should be regarded as manufacture and that they could not lawfully contend to the contrary. 5. Af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of laches is not entitled to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. The second ground, which disentitles the petitioner, is that since the tribunal gave a decision classifying the items manufactured by the petitioner by taking all relevant evidence and applying correct principle of law, this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction cannot go into the same. The evidence on record established that the petitioner was engaged in manufacture of bed sheets, bed covers, pillow covers, table linen, etc. From the tribunal's judgment, it appeals that there was no dispute about pillow covers. It is so noted in paragraph 2 of its judgment. The dispute is about other items. The department's case was that the process of c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the classification matter. However, the show cause notice dated 14-10-1985 could be challenged by means of an appeal under Section 35-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to tell us whether such an appeal had been filed. The fact that the petitioner could file appeal under the aforesaid provision is recited in the show cause notice itself. This is an additional ground for rejecting the writ petition praying for quashing the impugned show cause notice and the order of the Collector, Central Excise, Meerut dated 18-1-1988. For refusing to quash the order of the tribunal dated 22-7-1985 we have already given reasons above. Consequently, we find no merit in this petition and reject it su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
