TMI Blog2000 (9) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... short, the Act) read with the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (in short, the Rules). 2.Factual position, as stated by the petitioner, in a nutshell is that it is a small scale industrial unit engaged in the manufacture of cement under its own trade name. The Deputy Collector (T) issued a show cause notice on 28/31-10-1994 to the petitioner to show cause as to why Central Excise Duty amounting to Rs. 4,31,096 on 1306.350 MT of DCC brand cement manufactured and cleared without payment of proper duty from 1-4-1994 to 19-8-1994 should not be recovered from it under Rule 9(2) read with Section 11A of the Act and as to why a penalty should not be imposed under Rule 52A and 173Q of the Rules. Allegation was that the petitioner was manufacturing and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vailable to the goods manufactured and cleared by the petitioner as the same were affixed with the brand name of DCC belonging to another person. However, it was held that the Modvat credit of duty paid will be available to the petitioner provided it produced duty paying documents showing duty paid nature of the inputs to the satisfaction of the jurisdiction of Divisional Officer within two months. Penalty levied was from the date of receipt of order upheld. 3.According to the petitioner, the notification was clearly applicable and the departmental authority and CEGAT fell in grave error in holding that it was liable to pay duty and penalty as imposed. Learned Counsel for the respondent - Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution. In view of our above-mentioned observations this situation will also stand modified. In the view that we have taken, no appeal from the decision of a Tribunal will directly lie before the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution; but instead, the aggrieved party will be entitled to move the High Court under Article 226/227 of the Constitution and from the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court the aggrieved party could move this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution". 5.The view expressed in the paragraph quoted above was rendered in a contextually different background. Question before Apex Court was whether decision of the Tribunal created under Article 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stitution which is conceptually different. A decision is a determination arrived at after consideration of facts, and in the legal context, law related to the facts of a particular case. It is an authority for what is decided and not what consequentially or incidentally flows from the conclusion. Judgments of Courts are not to be constituted as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, "It may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define." Judges interpret words of statutes, their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. Observations of the Judges are not to be read as Euclid's theorems, not as provisions of the statute. (See Sreenivasa G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is provided against the order of the CEGAT under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act to the Supreme Court but the Apex Court itself had made it redundant by providing that no appeal would directly lie to it against any decision of the Tribunal save otherwise under Article 136 by special leave from the decision or the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court." 8.With great respect we are unable to agree with the observations contained in paras 15 and 16 quoted above. We have analysed the issues which were involved before the Apex Court in L. Chandra Kumar's case (supra). Nowhere in that Judgment, it has been stated that though statutory remedy is provided in the statute by way of appeal to the Apex Court, the same is to be bypass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere the very vires of the statute is in question or where private or public wrongs are so inextricably mixed up and the prevention of public injury and the vindication of public justice require it that recourse may be had to Article 226 of the Constitution but then the Court must have good and sufficient reason to by pass the alternative remedy provided by statute. Surely matters involving the revenue where statutory remedies are available are not such matters. We can also take judicial notice of the fact that the vast majority of the petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution are filed solely for the purpose of obtaining interim orders and thereafter prolong the proceedings by one device or the other. The practice certainly needs to b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
