9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (3) TMI 138X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). By Notification No. 66/82, dated 28-2-1982 all items under Tariff Item 17(4) of the First Schedule to the said Act were exempted from payment of excise duty except printed boxes and printed cartons (including flattened or folded printed boxes and flattened or folded printed cartons whether in assembled or unassembled condition). On 18-3-1982 the petitioner submitted a classification list under protest. It is the petitioner's case that the said shells, slides and hingelids come within the exempted category of Tariff Item 17(4). In any event it is contended that if it is held that the said shells, slides and hingelids are excisable, then the petitioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondents contested the matter through Counsel. The respondents have contended that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain this writ application. The respondents have relied upon the decision of State of Rajasthan Ors. v. Swaika Properties Anr., reported in AIR 1985 SC 1289. 5.The petitioners have contended that this Court has the jurisdiction to entertain this writ application firstly because the petitioner company's registered office is within the jurisdiction of this Court, secondly because the order dated 11-3-1983 was passed by the Appellate Authority in Calcutta and thirdly any further appeal there from would lie to the Tribunal in Calcutta. 6.In this writ petition the petitioners are seeking to enforce the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. 9.In the case of M/s. Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. v. The Collector, Central Excise, Sambalpur, reported in 1982 (10) E.L.T. 875 a Division Bench of the Orissa High Court presided over by R.N. Misra, CJ. (as His Lordship then was) held - The demand is under the Statute and the statutory Appellate Authority on the set of facts which are common both to the period when relief was granted and the period for which the impugned demand has been made, has already determined that no levy is exigible. As long as the appellate order stands, it must be duly respected and only when the revisional authority vacates the order and holds that the decision of the Appellate Authority is wrong and the demand was justified no demand should be raised. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was no change, either in the facts or in the law, at the time when the impugned show cause notices were issued. The earlier order of the Appellate Collector was, therefore, binding on the Department. The department was under an obligation to follow the earlier order. In the case of Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs, reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 552) the Calcutta High Court held that the Customs authorities were bound by their own decisions in administering taxing statutes. It observed: The customs now say that they are not bound by their previous decisions, whether the doctrine of precedents applies in the full rigour to administrative agencies and officers, and whether a reasonable latitude should be give ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
