9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (10) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are located at Kota, in the State of Rajasthan. Shri Ram Vinyl & Chemical Industries has been manufacturing P.V.C. Resin, P.V.C. Compound, P.V.C. Compound MBs, Caustic Soda etc. It has been regularly paying all the demands and dues under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner has been selling nearly 70% of its manufactured articles at the factory gate and the remaining nearly 30% through its various depots at Ahmedabad, Calcutta, Delhi, Indore, Nasirabad, Kundii, Ludhiana, Madras and Mira. The excise duty is being paid regularly. For the first time, the respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 25-8-1984 asking the petitioner to deposit the excise duty on the elements of 'Depot Service Charges' on the sale of manufactured artic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 31-3-1987, the petitioner was again compelled to file appeals in all these 12 cases before the Collector (Appeals) and those appeals are still pending. Still another set of demand-cum-show cause notice was issued by the Supdt. Central Excise, Kota, on 1-12-1988 for the period June to September, 1988 (Vide Annexure-5). On receipt of the aforesaid notice, the petitioner submitted a detailed reply dated 21-12-1988 pointing out that in view of the earlier orders, passed by the Collector (Appeals), Central Excise and Customs, between the parties and also in view of the latest decision of the Supreme Court in Indian Oxygen Ltd. v. Collr. ofC. Ex. [1988 (36) E.L.T. 723 (SC)] and various decisions of the Central Excise Appellate Tribunal, the notic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1990. The petitioner moved an application on 15-2-1990 requesting respondent No. 2 to hold the personal hearing in abeyance. Notwithstanding this application, the respondent No. 2 insisted for hearing the matter and passing an order inspite of the fact that this Court had stayed further proceedings in pursuance of the show cause notice issued in earlier set of writ petitions on 11-5-1989 and therefore, the petitioner filed the present set of writ petitions, along with stay petition on 11-4-1990, but the petitioner could not obtain the stay order from this Hon'ble Court because of the strike by the advocates in the High Court. The petitioner then moved an application on 30-4-1990 requesting the Assistant Collector not to pass any order but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
