9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (3) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... actured by the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner the activity carried on by the Petitioner does not amount to manufacture and that issue is covered by the decision of the CESTAT which is confirmed by this Court and therefore, the above show cause notices are liable to be quashed and set aside. 3. The Petitioner produces chemical preparations for processing cinematography films. By treating that the above activity constitutes manufacture, similar show cause notices were issued by the Excise Authorities, however the said show cause notices were dropped by an order-in-original dated 31st May, 2000 by holding that the activity carried on by the petitioner did not amount to manufacture. 4. Subsequently by an order-in-o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the excise duty on the goods clear during the period April, 2010 to October, 2010 and September, 2009 to March, 2010 respectively should not be recovered with penalty and interest. Challenging the aforesaid order the present Writ Petitions are filed. 9. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the show cause notices impugned in these petitions are illegal and the said show cause notices have been issued totally disregarding the order of the Tribunal dated 11-7-2008 which is upheld by this Court vide order dated 24-6-2009/12-11-2009 . 10. Relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India v. Kamlakshi Finance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 25-8-2009, was justified in issuing show cause notices demanding duty in respect of the clearances made during the period specified in the show cause notices. 12. The argument advanced on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned show cause notices have been issued contrary to the decision of the Tribunal dated 11-7-2008 as also the decision of this Court dated 24-6-2009/12-11-2009 is also totally incorrect. By order dated 11-7-2008 the Tribunal has set aside the order-in-original dated 24-4-2007 and not the order dated 31-5-2000. In para 17 of its order dated 11-7-2008, the Tribunal has merely referred to the order dated 31-5-2000 (issued on 26-6-2000) and has not set aside the order dated 31-5-2000. Even this Court in its order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
