9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog1996 (3) TMI 145X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... earned Single Judge entertained the writ application and issued an interim order in terms of prayer (e) of the writ application. Prayer (e) of the writ application reads as follows :- Injunction restraining the respondents herein and its men"(e) and subordinates from collecting excise duty from the petitioner No. 1 at a rate in excess of 50% of the rate at which the same is being paid presently for a period of five years from the date of commencement of production i.e. up to 15th November, 1991 in terms of the Press Notification dated 4th January, 1979 till the disposal of the application." 3.In addition the learned single Judge directed the writ petitioners to furnish bank guarantee for 50% of the disputed amount through any Nationalised ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otification No. 194/79-C.E., dated 30th May, 1979 to the writ petitioners. The notification was issued by the Central Government in exercise of its power conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. By the notification exemption was granted to cement falling under Item No. 23 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and manufactured in mini cement plant from so much of the duty of excise as was in excess of Rs. 32/- and paise 50 per M.T. It was made clear in the notification that the notification would be enforced upto and inclusive of 31st March, 1984. The notification was duly published in the official Gazette. There were subsequent modifications to the notification by which the amount of R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... name of the last respondent was deleted by the Learned Single Judge at the instance of the petitioner. It is to be noted that although the grievance of the writ petitioner directly affected the sactions of the Excise Authorities, none of the Authorities were made parties to the writ application. 8.Two main contentions have been raised before us by the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants namely : no part of the cause of action had arisen within the(i) jurisdiction of this court and as such the writ application was not maintainable; and the benefit of the notification had expired in 1984 and the(ii) writ petitioner could not extend the benefit on any principle of Promissory Estoppel. 9.The jurisdiction has been sought to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SC 1289 a notification becomes effective the moment it is published in the Official Gazette. It is not necessary to either plead awareness or service of notice or the notification in order to obtain relief from this court. 12.It has been settled by an earlier Division Bench of this Court in the case of Indo Asahi Glass Limited & Another v. Union of India & Others - 1987 (30) E.L.T. 124 (Cal.) that merely because the registered office of the writ petitioner company is at Calcutta this would not be sufficient to clothe this Court with jurisdiction. This was particularly so where the matter relates to Central Excise and the manufacturing activity of the writ petitioner is carried out outside the State of West Bengal. The Division Bench also h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it is not necessary for the petitioner to prove that he has acted on an assurance on the Government to his detriment in order to rely upon such an assurance. Thus the loss if any is not a material fact at all. The third ground is specious. It is not at all clear how the authority in Calcutta can resolve the dispute as raised. It is also not clear how this fact, even if true was necessary to the petitioner's case for relief. 15.For all these reasons we are of the view that this Court did not have the jurisdiction to entertain the writ application at all. 16.Even on the merits in our opinion the writ petitioners should not have been granted the relief they had been. The notification in question explicitly states that it was operative o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nion of India - 1991 (54) E.L.T. 178 where there is no ambiguity the meaning could not be modified by invoking the principle of promissory estoppel [see also Tan India Ltd. v. Union of India - 1991 (55) E.L.T. 170]. 19.According to the Appellants the Patna High Court had also held a similar view and the Special Leave Petition from the decision was dismissed by the Supreme Court. 20.Apart from any other aspect of the matter is the fact that the Excise Authorities were never made parties to the proceedings. The persons who were made parties were not really directly concerned with the question involved in the writ application. In addition is the delay in the writ petitioner's seeking for relief. The entire matter appears to have proceeded wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
