9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (12) TMI 98X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t orders issued by the Excise Commissioner and at the rate specified. 2. We may take the facts in Civil Misc. Writ No. 251 of 1990 as representative of the facts in all the writ petitions herein. Of course, wherever necessary we shall indicate facts of an individual writ petition. The petitioner in Civil Misc. Writ No. 251 of 1990 is L.H. Sugar Factory, Pilibhit. It is asking for an appropriate order or direction quashing the show-cause notice dated 28-4-1989 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Bareilly under Section 11-A of the Central Excise Act. It is also asking for quashing the order dated 29-1-1990 passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bareilly. Under the show-cause notice dated 28-4-1989 the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why he should not be made liable to pay duty amounting to Rs. 13,62,251.20 on the quantity stored by him in Kachcha pits as on 26-4-1989. It was alleged that the said storage is in contravention of Rules 9(1) and 49(1) of Central Excise Rules, 1944. Under the order dated 29-1-1990 the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Bareilly has confirmed the said demand in a sum of Rs. 13,62,251.20. The petitioner has come forward ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payable only when the goods are removed for sale and since no such removal has taken place, no duty is payable. It is further submitted that the show-cause notice dated 28-4-1989 and the final order dated 29-1-1990 are both illegal and invalid for the above reasons and also because the respondents are stopped from revoking the permission granted to them earlier to store the molasses in open Kachcha pits. It is submitted that the circular dated 1-8-1988 withdrawing the permission is not only unenforceable in law but also that it has no application to the molasses already stored in Kachcha pits. 5. Sri S.P. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner urged the following contentions : (1) That excise duty is payable only on removal of goods; removal means removal for sale or disposal. No such removal has taken place in the present case; no duty can, therefore, be levied. (2) That having permitted the petitioner to store the molasses in open Kachcha pits, because the circumstances warranted it, the respondents are estopped from withdrawing the said permission. Indeed, the withdrawal of permission contained in circular dated 1-8-1988 is not applicable to molasses already stored. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excise, Varanasi to the petitioner advising him that the molasses will not be allowed to be stored in Kachcha pits in accordance with the instructions issued by the Collector, Central Excise and that if he wants to store the same in Kachcha pits he has to pay the Central Excise duty in default of which appropriate action will be taken under Rules. In Writ Petition No. 490 of 1989 also there is no order under Section 11-A. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the orders dated 9-2-1989 and 14-2-1989. Under both the notices the petitioner was intimated that storage of molasses in Kachcha pits is no longer permissible and, therefore, the petitioner was to pay appropriate duty, in default whereof penal action will be taken against him. In writ petition No. 621 of 1989 also there is no order under Section 11-A. The prayer in the writ petition is to quash the order dated 16-3-1989. It is a letter sent by the Superintendent, Central Excise and Customs, Nainital to the petitioner intimating him that the permission for storage of molasses in Kachcha pits has been withdrawn by the instructions of the Collector of Central Excise on 23-12-1988 and, therefore, he must pay the appr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ties. We, therefore, do not know the terms of the said bond and cannot, therefore, pronounce upon the correctness of the said plea. The second contention of the petitioner was that the molasses is a controlled commodity and they could not clear it without the order of the Controller of Molasses. It was also submitted that the allottees did not lift the quantity in spite of the allotment order. This is a matter whose relevance and correctness has to be examined by the appropriate authority under the Act. It further appears that of the total quantity of molasses mentioned in the show-cause notice a portion of it was disposed of by the date of filing of the explanation i.e. 12-12-1989. Whether any further quantities have been cleared off since the filing of the explanation is also a matter for verification. In the writ petition a plea of promissory estoppel is also raised. The said plea has to be examined with reference to B-2 bond executed by the petitioners and as stated above the said bond has not been placed before us by any of the petitioners. 11. So far as the plea of limitation is concerned, it does not appear to have been raised in Writ Petition No. 251 of 1990. The said con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
