Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Category of Documents

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (8) TMI 678

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on, we do not propose to relegate the petitioner to avail alternative remedy, as suggested by learned counsel for the respondent - the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment is not in dispute and would squarely govern the case. Petition allowed. - R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16900 of 2018 - Dated:- 8-8-2019 - MR S. R. BRAHMBHATT AND MR A. P. THAKER, JJ. For The Petitioner (s) : AMAL PARESH DAVE (8961) And MR PARESH M DAVE (260) For The Respondent (s) : DS AFF.NOT FILED (N)(11), MR PY DIVYESHVAR (2482) AND MS NIYATI VAIDYA for MR. PARTH H BHATT (6381) ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT) 1. This petition is taken out under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with following prayers:- 14. ….. (A) That Your Lords .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... business of manufacturing Partially Oriented Yarns (POY), Fully Drawn Yarns (FDY) and texturized Yarns. POY and FDY produced in the petitioner s factory are used within the factory as captive consumption for manufacture of texturized yarn, which are removed from the factory on payment of appropriate excise duty. On 16.3.1995, the Central Government issued a notification granting exemption from excise duty to all the goods manufactured in a factory if consumed captively within the factory for production of final product. The same scheme was continued by another Notification dated 17.5.2003, therefore, the petitioner was also exempt from payment of excise duty. 3.2 On 27.2.2007, the Commissioner (Appeals), Ahmedabad passed an order and held .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the petitioner was not chargeable to National Calamity Contingency Duty and to restore OIA No.98/2009(AhdI) CE/ID/Commr(A)/Ahd dated 27.05.2009 [AnnexureH]. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioners fairly brought to our notice a decision of the Uttarakhand High Court in the case of Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Union of India [2015(317) ELT 12] wherein denial of Area Based exemption from National Calamity Contingent Duty and recovery thereof is held permissible by upholding demand made in various impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited our attention to Article 271 of the Constitution of India and decision of the Apex Court in the case of SRD Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Guwahati [2017(355) ELT 4 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||