9911796707
TMI Blog1999 (11) TMI 80X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eved by the omission of the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the petitioner's application under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and demand of duty without such disposal. 2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandra Prakash, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner is running a mill m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mmissioner had determined the actual production capacity of the petitioner at 32,323.4145 MT on which duty of Rs. 8,08,085/- was payable per month. Against this, the petitioner moved an application under Section 3A(4) of the Act which was dismissed by an order dated 23-3-1998. The petitioner filed appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi which set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the order dated 11-1-1999 both of which do not exist. It is claimed that for this purpose the respondent No. 2 visited the petitioner on 22-10-1999 and threatened to attach the unit. 6. No counter affidavit is proposed to be filed and in the circumstances of the case and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, this writ petition is disposed of as under :- 1. The respondent No. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
