TMI Blog2014 (10) TMI 802X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... use 19(iii) on the one hand and Clause 19(i) on the other hand only on account of the interim orders passed by this Court in W.P.No.2199 of 1981. Once that writ petition ended in the form of a direction to the respondent therein to pass an order and an order was passed on 04.05.1987, affirming the original classification, the question as to whether the period deserves to be excluded in the process of reckoning limitation under - Decided in favour of Revenue. - C.E.R.C.Nos.7 of 2000 & 1 of 2001 - - - Dated:- 4-9-2014 - SRI L.NARASIMHA REDDY AND SRI CHALLA KODANDA RAM, JJ. For the petitioner : Sri V. Gopala Krishna Gokhaley COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per LNR,J) These reference cases are filed by the Central Excise Department u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9(iii). The matter was carried in appeal and thereafter to the Supreme Court. The appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed on 27.06.1994 and ultimately the order dated 04.05.1987 affirming the classification of the product was upheld. The petitioner issued a demand notice, dated 16.11.1994 to the respondent requiring it to pay the difference of the excise duty for the products that were cleared during the pendency of W.P.No.2199 of 1981, in compliance with the interim orders. The respondent raised an objection as to limitation under Section 11-A of the Act as it stood at the relevant point of time. That was not accepted by the petitioner and an order of attachment, dated 29.11.1994 was passed for realisation of the arrears of excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an it be said that Section 11A of the Act is applicable? 2. Can a party who filed writ petition and obtained interim orders preventing the department from collecting duty can be permitted to plead the bar of limitation subsequently? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, in determining the validity of the demand, the period during which the proceedings are pending before the Courts/Tribunals should be excluded for computation of period of limitation? 4. Whether the facts and circumstances of the case, the asessee is debarred by the principles of constructive res- judicata from rising the plea of limitation in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court restoring the order of adjudication ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion for which the proceedings remain pending before the Court needs to be excluded in the reckoning of limitation. The relevant provisions contained in the Land Acquisition Act can be treated as an example. Section 6 of that Act mandates that a notification under that provision must be published within two years from the date on which the notification under Section 4(1) of that Act is published. The proviso to the Section is to the effect that if within the period of two years, any proceedings have been instituted before a Court of law, the period, during which the proceedings were pending, must be excluded. The examples can be multiplied. We are making a mention to these aspects only to impress that there exists prima facie case in favo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
