9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (4) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... een made against the petitioner; Annexure 9 contains the order dated 11-7-1990 whereby the appellate tribunal declined to entertain the appeal, preferred by the petitioner against the original order on merits and rejected it at the threshold. 2. It appears that some time in the year, 1979 the petitioner was served with a notice from the Central Excise Authorities for alleged contravention of Rules 9(1), 10(1), 52-A, 173C(A), (B) and (D) and 226 of the Central Excise Rule. On the basis of this notice a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner which concluded in the impugned order dated 31-12-1981. From this order, it appears that the Central Excise Authorities learnt from the records seized from the petitioner Firm that it had suppli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... anted stay to the petitioner on the condition that it should deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. The petitioner failed to make the deposit as required and as a result the tribunal dismissed the appeal by its order dated 16-2-1989 on the ground of non-complaince with the provision of Section 35F of the Central Excises and Salt Act. 6. The petitioner filed an application for recall of this order but that also was dismissed by order dated 21-4-1989. 7. The petitioner then came to this Court in CWJC No. 7089/1989 and expressed his willingness to deposit a sum of Rs. 25.000/- as ordered by the appellate tribunal. This Court at that stage declined to interfere in the matter but observed that in case the petitioner meant business, he should make that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows : "Steel furniture made partly or wholly of steel, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, whether in assembled or unassembled condition and parts of such steel, furniture (but excluding slotted angles and channels made of steel)." (emphasis supplied). It is, thus, clear that almirahs, operation tables and labour tables have been taken by the authorities as steel furnitures for levying excise duty. 13. Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that operation tables and labour tables are not steel furnitures and are, thus, beyond the scope of Item 40 and accordingly no excise duty is leviable on these appliances/go ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the appellate tribunal having declined to entertain the appeal on merits, the petitioner never got an opportunity to bring to the notice of the authorities the exemption notification(s) which fully applied to the petitioner firm. 15. Having heard Mr. Sinha and Mr. Verma appearing on behalf of the revenue authorities, I am satisfied that this case insofar as levy of duty on steel almirahs is concerned, must be remitted back to the Additional Collector, Central Excise, Patna who will consider the matter afresh in the light of the aforesaid exemption notifications and pass appropriate order in accordance with law. 16. In the result the impugned orders are quashed insofar as excise duty is levied on operation tables and labour tables; in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
