9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (10) TMI 93X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t started production on November 1,1990. The petitioner avers that it submitted a classification list to the Department of Central Excise in which it described its product as 'Bars'. On November 15, 1990, the petitioner was given a notice to show cause as to why its product be not classified as 'Hooks and Flat Products' instead of 'Bars'. Finally, the classification list of the petitioner was modified and approved as 'Flats' with effect from November 1,1990. Thereafter, the petitioner has been assessed for the levy of excise duty on the basis that it was producing 'flats'. 3. On December 20,1990, the Custom Excise Gold Appellate Tribunal gave a decision presumably to the effect that products such as those produced by the petitioner have t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , thus, obvious that there is a difference of Rs. 460 PMT in the excise duty leviable on the two products. 5. The petitioner avers that its product is described as 'Patti/Patra' in the business parlance. It is classified as 'flats'. It is exigible to excise duty at the rate of Rs. 1380 PMT approximately. However, in view of the decision of the CEGAT which is pending consideration before the Apex Court the Department is wanting it to pay excise duty at the rate of Rs. 920 PMT. If the matter had rested here only, the petitioner would not have had any grievance. However, in spite of classifying the petitioner's product as 'Bars', the Department is wanting the petitioner to give an undertaking that in the event of the acceptance of the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the petitioners are now called upon to pay the excise duty as specified for 'Bars', they will not be able to charge anything beyond the excise duty actually paid from the customers. In the event of reversal of the decision of the CEGAT by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, the petitioners would become liable to pay extra duty at the rate of Rs. 460 PMT without their being able to recover it from the parties to whom the product may have been sold. This, the learned counsel submits is totally arbitrary and would virtually result in the closure of the mills set up by the petitioners. On the other hand Mr. G.B.S. Sodhi, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the Department has issued instructions with the sole object of complying ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ty at the rate of 10 per cent ad valorem besides the special excise duty at the rate of 15 per cent of the basic excise duty. The petitioners are willing to pay the excise duty at this rate. This is higher than the rate of duty prescribed for the product classified as 'Bars'. Learned counsel for the petitioners further states that even if the appeal filed by the Department against the decision of the CEGAT is dismissed, the petitioners shall not claim any refund from the Department. In this situation, there should be no difficulty whatsoever with the Department in accepting the excise duty at a higher rate. The only result would be that the state exchequer would get more money and the petitioners would be saved the avoidable botheration. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
