9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (2) TMI 144X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order and after giving due reasons, the Tribunal expressed the opinion that it is not a fit case where stay should be granted in full. It noticed that the petitioner had not pleaded any financial hardship either. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal directed the petitioner to deposit 75% of the duty and granted stay for the remaining 25%. It also granted stay of penalty in the sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. In this writ petition, it is contended that the Tribunal was in error in not granting the full stay as asked for. 2.Ordinarily, this Court does not interfere with interlocutory orders passed by CEGAT. The Counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that there has been a grave procedural irregularity, which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eals). They relate to classification. They were not proceedings under Section 11A. Those classification proceedings began by a notice dated 9-7-1981 issued by the Superintendent, Central Excise, Range-II, Naini, Allahabad, calling upon the petitioner to apply for L-4 licence in respect of Dant Manjan Lal manufactured by the petitioner since, according to him, it was liable to excise duty under Tariff Item 68 of the Schedule to the Act then in force. The petitioner opposed the same. According to the petitioner, it is not a cosmetic, but a drug and being a drug, it is exempt from duty. This plea was rejected by the Assistant Collector by his order dated 25-8-1981, who held that the said product was dutiable under Tariff Item 68. The petitione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it is classifiable under Tariff Item 68 as cosmetic. However, the matter was remanded to the Collector (Appeals) to examine the petitioner's claim for exemption under Notification No. 179/77, dated 18-6-1977. In other words, the remand was for a limited purpose of examining whether in manufacturing the product in question, power was used or not. These proceedings are still pending. 4.Now, we shall refer to the present proceedings, which have been taken under Section 11A of the Act. These proceedings commenced by a show cause notice dated 27-8-1987 issued by the Collector, Central Excise, Allahabad, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be made liable to pay duty on the said product cleared during the last five y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 11A. As pointed out hereinbefore, duty for the period prior to 28-8-1982 had already become barred by time by the date of the initiation of proceedings under Section 11A. If the Department had waited further, even duty for later years would have become barred. Prima facie, we see no illegality in the initiation of proceedings under Section 11A pending classification proceedings. 6.We may reiterate that the petitioner's claim for exemption under Notification No. 179/77 has also been gone into in these proceedings under Section 11A and has been negatived. The same question will again now be gone into by the CEGAT pending before it. If and when the Collector (Appeals) holds, in pursuance of the order of remand dated 10/12-7-1990, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
