TMI Blog1994 (1) TMI 95X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The petitioner is a manufacturer of sugar which is liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. As per Notification No. 4-C.E., dated 1-1-1972, the Government of India have granted concession in the matter of levy of excise duty to such quantities of sugar actually delivered to the Government for distribution at fair price to d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itioner were not proved. Thereafter, the third respondent, after following the usual procedure, by order dated 6-1-1978, revised the aforesaid order and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6 Lakhs (Six Lakhs) against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not actually supplied the sugar manufactured in its factory to the Government as per Notification No. 4 dated 1-1-1972. The petitioner, aggri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner before the Tribunal was, that the Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction as no question relating to rate of duty of excise or to the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment arises out of the facts of this case. According to the petitioner, the only question to be decided on the facts of this case is, whether the petitioner has delivered sugar to claim concessional rate of exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Special Bench constituted by the President. 6. But, in this case, it is clear on going through the records that the question that has to be decided is, whether the petitioner has supplied levy sugar at the disposal of the Government or not. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the petitioner is entitled to concessional rate of levy of excise duty. Otherwise, the petitioner is l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
