9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 114X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Tariff Entry 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. According to the petitioner, as per this classification, component parts are not duty payable. Under the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985, potentiometers fall under the Heading 8533 of the Tariff and the switches under the Heading 8529 and they are exempted from duty by virtue of the Notification No. 74 of 1975. 3. The second respondent issued three show cause notices to the petitioner-company calling upon it to submit an explanation as to why component parts should not be levied duty. The petitioner sent his explanation on 15-10-1987 to the above show cause notices contending (a) As per rules for interpretation of the Schedule to the Excise Tariff and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the modification and direction to the Assistant Collector as stated above. Thereupon the petitioner wrote to the Assistant Collector/first respondent on 1-10-1988 to the effect that on the basis of the principles of natural justice and also due to the fact that in a way the original order has been set aside, the regular procedure of issue of show cause notice etc. as in the case of de novo proceeding may be followed in redetermining the amount so that the petitioner may have an opportunity to go on appeal to the Collector (Appeals) if they are not satisfied with their decision. According to the petitioner, the Assistant Collector without considering the said application and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner, he issued the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ther the impugned order was passed before ever the petitioner was given any opportunity. As such, it is violative of the principle of natural justice also. It is only in that view, the writ petition has to be allowed and the impugned order has to be set aside and the first respondent has to be directed to dispose of the matter afresh in the light of the order of the Collector (Appeals) dated 19-7-1988. 6. In the result, the writ petition is allowed, the impugned demand made by the second respondent in pursuance of the order passed by the first respondent is hereby quashed and the first respondent/Assistant Collector is directed to redetermine the amount in the light of the order passed by the Collector (Appeals) dated 19-7-1988 and in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
