9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (12) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Hazaribagh. By that communication, dated 6-6-2003, the petitioner was informed that the exemption under Notification No. 63/95-C.E., dated 16-3-1995 was not available to the goods manufactured in the concerned workshop, since the concerned workshop was a factory registered under the Factories Act, 1948. It is seen that the petitioner was issued a show cause cum demand notice dated 8-1-2003 informing the petitioner that the manufactured articles were dutiable under the Excise Act, 1944 and the petitioner has submitted a reply dated 3-6-2003 to that notice. It is common case that the adjudication proceedings in that befalf is pending in terms of Section 11A of the Act. 2.According to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 6-6-2003 was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the regular course. 3.We are inclined to find some substance in this contention of the learned Counsel for the Department. We also think that the time has not arrived for us to decide the question posed for a decision before us by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. How far the principle of res judicata would apply in the matter of assessment under the Excise Act for different years and if the principle applies, what exactly was decided earlier by the Appellate Tribunal and whether the Department is not entitled to say that a particular significant fact was omitted to be considered and consequently the prior decision cannot be considered to be final, are all questions that may require examination at the appropriate stage. The fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... articles manufactured were being removed from the workshop after executing the necessary bond and this arrangement may continue until the adjudication process is completed and a decision taken. Learned Counsel for the Department submitted that on the scheme of the fact, no goods should be permitted to be removed without payment of duty and in that situation it would not be appropriate to permit removal of the articles manufactured merely based on the bond. He pointed out that there is a provision for refund under the Act and in case the petitioner succeeds in establishing that the articles manufactured are entitled to exemption, the amount can be refunded and the petitioner cannot be prejudiced. To meet this contention, learned Counsel for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ommissioner of Central Excise, Ranchi to complete the adjudication proceedings within two months from this date and meanwhile directing the respondents to permit the petitioner to remove the articles manufactured in the Central Workshop of the petitioner situated at Barkakana after executing a bond favouring the Commissioner undertaking to pay whatever duty is found payable for the goods removed and on the petitioner maintaining proper accounts of the goods thus removed from the premises to the mines operated by the petitioner. This arrangement will continue until the adjudication is completed. It is made clear that this permission for removal of the goods on the basis of the undertaking will be subject to the result of the adjudication by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
