9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he backward area of Makshi, district Shajapur. By virtue of the fact that petitioner No. 1 has set up its industry in backward area, the State Government has granted certain incentives to the petitioner No. 1 industry. The initial period of the said incentives expired on 17-3-1996, but has been extended further by the State Government, for a further period of two years, therefore, it is still enjoying the said benefits. 3.The products which are being manufactured by the petitioner No. 1 Company are excisable goods, which fall under Heading No. 68.04 of the Central Excise Tariff Act. The rate of duty is 25 per cent ad valorem on the price of the goods at the factory gate. In addition to this there is also special excise duty leviable on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve been passed with regard to other price lists. On the basis of these orders the earlier price lists which were submitted and approved have been modified which are collectively marked as Annexure-H. The petitioner No. 1 was then directed to pay the excise duty on all clearances on the value which was fixed by it for sale of its goods in M.P. Against these orders, instead of filing appeals under S. 35F of the Act, the petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer to invoke the jurisdiction conferred, on this Court, under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 5.Respondents have filed their reply in oppugnation. At the outset they have submitted that the impugned orders are appealable under S. 35F of the Act and no case has been made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities to review the matter, the impugned orders deserves to be set aside and quashed. 7.On the other hand Shri Neema has strongly contended that there is no reason why all these points cannot be taken up in an appeal and there is no reason why the points if so taken up, the Appellate Authority shall not consider the same in the light of the present legal position. Shri Neema has also referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1994 SC 754 (State of U.P. and Another v. Labh Chand). In the said judgment it has been held as under : "When a Statutory Forum or Tribunal is specifically created by a statute for redressal of specified grievances of persons on certain matters, the High Court should not normally permit such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
