9911796707
TMI Blog1992 (11) TMI 105X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ember, 1990 with corrigendum dated 15th October, 1990 (Annexures 14, 15 and 16 respectively to the writ petition). According to the case of the petitioner since last 20 years, the Government of India has been giving exemption from Central Excise Duty under Rule 8(1), Central Excise Rules, 1944 by issue of notification in order to boost the production of the SSI units. The notification was issued time and again in the past. The petitioner has started its production since 13th March, 1984 and the relevant concessional notification applicable to the petitioner-unit then was Notification No. 83/83-C.E., dated 1st March, 1983. Similarly, for the subsequent year 1984-85 it was covered by Notification 85/85-C.E., dated 17th March, 1985. Thereafter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise, served upon the petitioner a show cause notice dated 31st August, 1990/30th September, 1990 as to why classification list effective from 8th October, 1989, and 1st April, 1990, which was submitted by the petitioner and approved by the respondent No. 2 under Rule 173B cannot be modified. The notice does recite that the classification lists were got approved by the petitioner by misrepresentation of tact. The case of the petitioner is that at no stage there was any misrepresentation of fact by the petitioner in getting the lists of goods approved as aforesaid nor there is anything stated even in the show cause notice, and thus the show cause notice is without jurisdiction. The respondent authority can only recall, modify or cancel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice for modifying the approved list by it earlier on the facts and circumstances of this case. In the long counter-affidavit, we do not find any paragraph specifying the factual misrepresentation made by the petitioner in obtaining for approval of the list as aforesaid. The only ground in the counter-affidavit which has been spread in various paragraphs and urged by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents is that as per amended notification the petitioner is not entitled for the exemption granted to it earlier. Thus, there is nothing on the record to record a finding on the basis of averments in this writ petition that the petitioner has in any way misrepresented, concealed any fact or committed fraud for obtaining the af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... respondent No. 2. It is not a case whether any notification has come subsequent to the approval of the list and in case it affects such an approval there might be a case where question could be raised that the approval earlier became erroneous on account of subsequent notification in case it is retrospective, to which we are not concerned, nor we are adjudicating this in the present case. We find, even scope of various notifications was all placed by the petitioner before the respondent No. 2 who granted approval. Thus, on the facts of this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner misrepresented any fact in obtaining the approval earlier. 6. In Ajanta Iron and Steel Company Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [1986 (23) E.L.T. 318 ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
