9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to be taken under the same notice dated 31-3-1989 except that the petitioner in one is by the Fabricator and the other is the owner of the lorry which was found transporting the goods in question. 2. The relief sought for in W.P. No. 5760 of 1989 is for a writ of mandamus directing the second respondent to forbear from implementing the proposals under the provisions of the Central Excise Act, 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that really looms large for consideration is as to whether the trusses and purlins can be treated as excisable goods and the manufacturers can be called upon to pay the excise duty in respect thereof. Initially, the very petitioner in W.P. No. 5760 of 1989 filed an appeal with the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) Madras and there is no controversy over the position that the said authority in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pursued the matter on further appeal before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi and that appeal in Appeal No. E/1933/88-B1 stands posted for hearing to 3-3-1992. It is in the above circumstances and placing reliance upon a decision of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court in D.C.M. Ltd. v. Union of India [1991 (52) E.L.T. 18] and particularly paragraph 15 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... endency of the issue before the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Tribunal at the instance of the respondent/department. In the light of the above, in my view, the only order that is required to be passed in the interest of justice and in order to safeguard the interest of both parties is that further action pursuant to the impugned notices shall be deferred by the respondent No. 2 pending final d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
