TMI Blog2017 (10) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the contentions raised in this writ petition - this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to canvas all points in the pending appeal before the CESTAT, which includes the validity and the correctness of the order dated 24.03.1998, as also the order dated 11.06.2003 both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise. - W. P. No. 27335 of 2005 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2017 - T. S. Sivagnanam, J. For Petitioner : Mr.C.Saravanan For Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas ORDER Heard Mr.C.Saravanan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Senior Central Government Standing counsel for the respondent. 2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the order passed by the first resp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had fixed the annual capacity of production of the petitioner as 14428.000 metric tonne, being the production of the petitioner during the year 1996 1997 in terms of the relevant rules. In the show cause notice, the differential duty payable by the petitioner for the months from September 1997 to March 1998 was demanded. The petitioner sent a reply dated 18.04.1998, stating that the demand was not authorized as the matter is subjudice and pending before this Court and they have obtained stay against the introduction of Sub-Rule 5 and therefore, the question of issuing demand would not arise. 6. Subsequently, a communication was sent to the petitioner on 08.05.1998 by the Additional Commissioner of Technical Office of the Commissioner of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce the writ petitions, which were filed by the petitioner and other similar persons were dismissed, holding that the rule is in no way contrary to Section 3A and that being a fiscal provision as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is not violative of Article 14 or 19 of the Constitution of India. The said decision is reported in 2003 (159) ELT 75 (Mad). 8. Pursuant to said decision, the first respondent passed by an order dated 11.06.2013 reiterating the earlier fixation of the annual capacity production. The show cause notices were taken up for adjudication and by an order in O.P.No.3272 of 2003 dated 31.07.2003, the petitioners contentions were rejected and the demand of duty was confirmed. Against the said order the petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... questions of fact, this Court is inclined to grant liberty to the petitioner to canvas all points in the pending appeal before the Tribunal. Accordingly, the question, which was framed for consideration, is answered in the affirmative and therefore, there would not be any necessity for this Court to go into the merits of the contentions raised in this writ petition. 10. Accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of giving liberty to the petitioner to canvas all points in the pending appeal before the CESTAT, which includes the validity and the correctness of the order dated 24.03.1998, as also the order dated 11.06.2003 both passed by the Commissioner of Central Excise, as well as other grounds urged by the petitioner in this writ peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
