9911796707
TMI Blog2000 (11) TMI 158X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s filed above writ petitions invoking Article 226 of the Indian Constitution for the relief sought for questioning the order passed by the Collector of Central Excise, Madurai, dated 15-11-92. In the affidavits filed in support of the writ petitions, the petitioners have narrated all the facts and circumstances that forced them to file the writ petitions and requested this Court to allow the three writ petitions. 3On the other hand, the respondents have filed. counter-affidavit rebutting all the material allegations levelled against them one after another and requested this Court to dismiss the writ petitions for want of merits. 4.The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners together with the arguments of the learned counsel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appropriate classification of the various products manufactured by them under the new Tariff Act. In that letter the petitioner company mentioning the raw materials used in the manufacture, the process of manufacture and the various end uses of the various products, requested for the advise of the department concerning the proper classification of the manufactured products. 9.It is the further case of the petitioner that in this letter the Nylon, Polyester and Polypropylene sewing threads made out of duty paid indigenous and imported filament yarns had been duly mentioned. The Central Excise authorities of Madurai Collectorate initially taking the view that sewing threads are known in the market differently from yarns and they are differ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act. The adjudicating authority is empowered to demand duty that is not paid under the provisions of Section 11A of the Act. In the case of the order-in-original that is impugned in W.P. No. 19201 of 1992, the assessee misdeclared the sewing thread as if it was made out of excise duty paid yarn in terms of Notification 53/91. The petitioner in W.P. No. 19201 of 1992 had in their classification list, which was approved on 19-8-1987, declared that thread manufactured by them is made from duty paid yarn. But it was found that they manufactured sewing thread out of imported yarn also wherein no excise duty has been paid and the respondent has invoked the provision to Section 11A and demanded duty. Therefore the demand is valid within law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 460 (S.C.) = AIR 1997 SC 3871 (Collector of Central Excise, Patna v. Usha Martin Industries (4) 1996 (88) E.L.T. 645 (S.C.) (Collector of Central Excise, Jaipur v. Banswara Syntex Ltd. The ruling relied on by the learned counsel for petitioners are not applicable to the case of the petitioners in view of the fact that the petitioners did not exhaust the legal remedy open under law by way of an appeal before the CEGAT. These rulings are helpful to the petitioners, provided if the petitioner exhausted the legal remedy open under law by way of appeal and the appellate order is challenged by the petitioners, but the petitioners never sought for the relief by way of appeal and therefore I am of the clear view, that the above r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
