9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (4) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 in the same premises under the same manner and the same partnership. The petitioner had commenced manufacture of straw board with effect from 11-3-1981 and had availed exemption from payment of Central Excise duty during the financial year 1980-81 to 1982-83 in terms of the aforesaid Notification dated 19-6-1980. There was also a provision in the said notification to the effect that if the value of clearances of all excisable goods by him or on his behalf, for home consumption from one or more factories, during the preceding financial year, had exceeded Rupees Twenty Lakhs, the said exemption shall not be withheld. For the three financial years, value of the clearances of both straw board and rice stood a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Still aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the aforesaid order dated 23-9-1985 passed by the aforesaid Tribunal on the stay application filed by the petitioner. Counter-affidavit and rejoinder-affidavit has been exchanged in this case. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. No body has appeared on behalf of the Central Excise Department although the Court waited for much time. From a perusal of the impugned order passed by the aforesaid Tribunal, it is clear that the arguments advanced for dispensing with the deposit of the disputed amount before the aforesaid Tribunal were three in numbers. First was that the order passed by the Collector was ex parte. In this regard the aforesaid Tribunal h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of Luxco Electronics v. Union of India and Others [1987 (31) E.L.T. 883J and the other case of the same Luxco Electronics v. Union of India and Others [1988 (33) E.L.T. 641 (All.)] are concerned, the stay application was disposed of by the Tribunal without following the directions of the High Court regarding the prima facie determination of plea of demand being time-barred. In these circumstances in these two cases the High Court set aside the impugned orders of the Tribunal and remanded the matter of stay back for consideration afresh. This position does not operate in the present case in as much as the impugned order of the Tribunal does not make a mention that any such point was either pressed before the Tribunal at the time of h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
