9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (1) TMI 78X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and food preparations' including six items specified therein. It is not necessary for me to refer to those items which are included. It is sufficient to note that all kinds of food products are exempted under the notification. 2.By Letter dated 11-8-1975 in C. No. V/68/30/21/75, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras IV Division issued a notice to the petitioners to show cause why flavouring essences for edible food products should not be classified as non-food products assessable to duty under Item No. 68 of the C.E. Tariff. The Assistant Collector rejected the contention of the petitioners that they would fall under the expression `food products' and passed an order. The petitioners filed an appeal before the Appellate Colle ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... coholic)' shown in Item No. 5 and Sl. No. 1 and 4 of your classification list respectively are classified as the Excisable items. In this connection your kind attention is invited on this office Letter O.C. No. 74/80 dated 18-1-1980. Clearance of the above said items should be made after payment of Central Excise Duty under Tariff item No. 68. Receipt of this letter may please be acknowledged." 4.In spite of the fact that the order was against the petitioners herein, the Collector of Central Excise chose to issue a show cause notice under Section 35A of the Act on 26-6-1980 to the petitioners to show cause why the classification made by the Superintendent should not be set aside the goods should not be treated as excisable. Obviously the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Government. The petitioners have approached this Court as the order is, according to them, without Jurisdiction. I am of the opinion that in the facts of this case it is not proper for the Court to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that an alternative remedy is available to the petitioners. Moreover, the writ petition has been pending for nearly fourteen years after it was admitted in 1980 and it will be grave injustice if the petitioners are driven to work out their rights under the provisions of Section 36 of the Act. A similar view has been expressed by me already in Limenaph Chemicals v. Union of India [1993 (68) E.L.T. 77]. 6.Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has raised several contentions to say that the impugned ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pronouncement has been made by any authority or any court. In the counter-affidavit filed by the respondents a statement is made in para 10 thereof that after 19-4-1978 there has been a change of judicial opinion. I am unable to find any support therefor. There is no judicial pronouncement or even a decision by any departmental authority to warrant a change of classification. Nor has any new material been placed before the respondents in order to enable them to come to a different conclusion. 9.No doubt, in taxation matters the Principle of res judicata will not apply. But, when particular goods are brought under a classification with reference to the tariff item that classification will continue to be in force so long as some change is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
