TMI Blog2012 (4) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s available to it, as per law, within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - W.P.No.3409 of 2008 - - - Dated:- 15-2-2012 - MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN, J. For Petitioner : Mr.Joseph Prabhakar For Respondents : Mr.A.C.Manibharathi (R1 R2) ORDER This writ petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, to call for and quash the order of the first respondent, in Order-in-Original No.21/2007, dated 30.11.2007. 2. It is stated that the petitioner company is engaged in the manufacture of automobile parts and components, falling under Chapter 8708.00 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The petitioner company is having central excise ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ford Limited and the written down value of the tooling was written off by the petitioner company, during the year 2000-2001, amounting to Rs.47,41,578/-. 5. Out of the said amount of Rs.47,41,578/-, Rs.15,69,578/- had been credited to the petitioner s Nasik unit and Rs.31,72,000/- had been credited to the Chennai Unit of the petitioner company, under the head `Miscellaneous Income . While so, the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Chennai-II Commissionerate, had issued a Show Cause Notice No.79/2005, dated 25.10.2005, calling upon the petitioner company to show cause, as to why the excise duty of Rs.5,07,520/-, at 16% on the tooling advance of Rs.31,72,000/-, written off, is not leviable on the additional consideration paid, by M/s. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se (Appeals), by his order, dated 31.1.2007, made in Order-in-Appeal No.26/2007, had remanded the matter back to the lower authority for deciding the same, afresh, by observing the principles of natural justice, with a direction to follow the judgement of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, in Commissioner of Central Excise, Madras Vs. Shardlow India Limited 1999[110] ELT 772 [T]. Further, the petitioner has been directed to produce all the requisite information and the documents, before the lower authority, as and when required by him, to decide the matter, as per law. Accordingly, the matter had been adjudicated by the second respondent, who had passed an order, dated 30.11.2007, in Order-in-Original No.21/2007. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d been passed by the first respondent, scrupulously, following the directions of Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) Chennai, issued in Order-in-Appeal No.26/2007 (M-II), dated 31.1.2007. 11. It had also been stated that the order passed by the Joint Commissioner of Central Excise, Nasik, State of Maharashtra, cannot be said to be binding on the adjudicating authority in another part of the country, as the issues which were before the first respondent involved certain issues relating to the interpretation of the rules and the regulations of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The respondents had correctly interpreted the relevant provisions of law and had initiated action to recover the excise duty payable by the petitioner, with a view ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
