9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (3) TMI 146X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing, along with the job of processing including dyeing, bleaching and finishing of cloth. There arose a dispute between the Central Excise Department of the Union of India and the petitioners about the interpretation and applicability of the term 'manufacture' as provided under S. 2(f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The matter reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, wherein a Writ Petition No. 1442 of 87 was filed by the petitioners along with other writ petitions raising the same issue by different manufacturers in different States. The Supreme Court was pleased to admit the writ petition of the petitioners and grant a stay order on 4-11-1987. The relevant portion of the stay order granted by the Supreme Court is as under : "Pendin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent, the order for encashing the bank guarantees passed by respondent No. 3 is neither proper nor justified. It has also been averred that the act of encashing the bank guarantees is also without any authority of law as the final adjudication order about the duty payable by the petitioners have not been passed. 5. In reply to the show cause notice issued by the Court to the Union of India it has been averred that the Hon'ble Supreme Court while admitting the writ petition of the petitioners and others, vide stay order dated 4-11-1987 has clearly laid down a condition that the petitioners shall furnish bank guarantee in regard to the difference between the ultimate price charged from the customers and value of the processing work done by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s clear and categorical, still the petitioners have chosen to file this writ petition on frivolous and totally untenable grounds. According to the Union of India the question of any formal adjudication by the Assistant Collector is categorically ruled out and would be against the spirit and purpose of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and perusing the stay order and the final judgment of the Supreme Court of India, we are of the view that this petition is without any merit. The Supreme Court has given the following directions in respect of recovery : (i) In cases where notices under S. 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 have been served and claims do not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
