9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 65X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... roducts manufactured by the petitioners were liable to be assessed for the purpose of excise duty under Tariff Item 16A(i) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners applied to the Assistant Collector on July, 9,1975 claiming that the manufacture of their products is liable to be assessed under Tariff Item 34A instead of 16A(i). The Assistant Collector rejected the claim by order dated August 7,1976. The Collector of Central Excise confirmed the order on August 29,1977, but the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Central Board of Excise was allowed by order dated July 16,1980, and it was held that the products manufactured by the petitioners are liable to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be heard so expeditiously. There is no merit in the application for adjournment and I have rejected the same. In the first instance it is futile for Shri Sethna to seek an adjournment on the ground that he was briefed by the Department only yesterday evening. The petition was posted for hearing today on the application of the petitioner made in the last week after giving notice to the Department. The petition was admitted on August 2,1983 and the learned Judge did not grant interim relief but expedited the hearing of the petition. Inspite of it, it is difficult to understand why the Department thinks that it can wait till the petition reaches hearing to prepare a return. In my judgment, the application for adjournment is entirely misconcei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... willing to give an undertaking that in case ultimately the Government of India is able to revise the order of the Central Excise to the detriment of the petitioner, the petitioner would refund the amount recovered in accordance with the refund applications. In my judgment, the undertaking of the petitioner is more than sufficient to safeguard the interest of the Department. 6. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the rule is made absolute and the respondents are directed to process the refund applications and pass appropriate order of refund and pay the said amount to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today. The petitioner undertakes to this Court that in case the amount of refund is paid and subsequently the Government ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
