9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (10) TMI 104X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as illegal, null and void. 2. The first petitioner is a limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. The 2nd petitioner is one of the shareholders. Under Rule 8(i) of the Central Excise Rules, the Central Government issued Notification No. 201/79, dated 4-6-1979. It was subsequently amended by Notification No. 105/82 dated 28-2-1982, granting certain exemptions. The petitioner filed declarations for the excisable goods i.e. paper and paper boards of different varieties from time to time. Under the said notification, the 1st petitioner-company was availing proforma credits in respect of 12 items including burnt lime (hereinafter referred to as the "lime input"). The 3rd respondent issued a show cause notice No. 4/82 dated 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t filed a counter-affidavit stating inter alia that under T.I. 68 read with Notification No. 201/1979, the following materials were notified : (1) Alum, (2) Resin, (3) China clay, (4) Sodium sulphate, (5) Sodium sulphide, (6) Sodium aluminate, (7) Talcum powder, (8) Glue, (9) Alpholoc powder, (10) Cepol powder, (11) Wires, and (12) Burnt lime. The Superintendent of Central Excise who is incharge of the 1st petitioner-company by order dated 31-12-1982, allowed set-off after inspection of items mentioned at Serial Nos. 1 to 8,10 and 12 and disallowed set-off in respect of Serial Nos. 9 and 11. In respect of these items no appeal was preferred. On 16-8-1984 the 2nd respondent issued a show cause notice to the 1st petitioner-company to explain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent to set aside the order of the 3rd respondent dated 31-12-1982. He further contends that the lime is an input within the meaning of Notification No. 201/79 as amended by Notification No. 105/82. Therefore, the order of the 2nd respondent is unsustainable. 5. Mr. Innayya Reddy, the learned Standing Counsel for the Central Government, contends that the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal, which he did not avail, therefore the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed. He submits that the impugned order is passed by the 2nd respondent under Para 4 of Appendix to Notification No. 201/79 dated 4-6-1979, therefore the order is not without jurisdiction. On merits also the learned Standing Counsel submits that lime cannot be tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o motu revision is available to the 2nd respondent against the said order. The 2nd respondent himself stated in the counter-affidavit that he did not exercise the power under Section 11A or 35E of the Act. However, the impugned order is sought to be sustained by the learned Standing Counsel under Para 4 of Appendix to Notification No. 201/1979, dated 4-6-1979. The said para reads as follows : "4. If the credit of duty paid on inputs has been taken wrongly, the credit so taken may be disallowed by the proper Officer and the amount so disallowed shall be adjusted in the credit account or the account-current or if such adjustment is not possible for any reason, by a cash recovery from the manufacturer of the said goods." 9. From a perusal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
