TMI Blog2008 (11) TMI 255X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eme, 1998 introduced by the Finance Act 21 of 1998 in accordance with law. Such exercise will be undertaken by the respondents within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 12756 of 1999 - - - Dated:- 20-11-2008 - K. Chandru, J. [Order]. - The petitioner is a manufacturer of hot re-rolled products. The petitioner's manufactured goods fall under chapter Heading 72 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 5-3-1998 calling upon him to show cause as to why a differential duty of Rs. 29,01,015/- should not be demanded and further penalty should not be imposed on them under the Central Excise Rules. At this stage, the petitioner wanted to take advan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... also stated that the petitioner has not disputed the order passed by the Commissioner dated 16-9-1997. Since there was no dispute and since there was no petition pending before any forum, he was intimated that he cannot avail KVSS. 3. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed the present writ petition, which was admitted on 30-7-1999. This Court also directed the petitioner to deposit 50% of the duty within a time frame. It is stated by Mr. Jenasenan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has deposited Rs. 10.5 lakhs pursuant to the interim order. However, Mr. Ravichandrababu, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the respondents states that this would fall short of Rs. 4 lakhs. As 50% of Rs. 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... writ petition is admitted or pending before the appellate court or the High Court or the Supreme Court and where no application for revision is made before the Central Government, the Scheme is not to apply. In this case, admittedly, on the due date i.e. 31-3-1998 there was no pending appeal, reference, writ petition or application, under these circumstances, the declaration was correctly rejected." 5. It is not clear as to how the said judgment is of any assistance to the respondents, where the Supreme Court had considered the case of the petitioner therein only on the claim made under Section 95(ii)(c) whereas in the present case, Section 95(ii)(b) is pressed service. Therefore, the case of the petitioner merits acceptance. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|