Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2003 (10) TMI 68

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . The Facts : 3.The facts giving rise to the present petition, in nut shell, are as under : That petitioner No. 1 is a private limited company having its head office at Mumbai and factory at Surat. The petitioners are engaged in manufacture of organic chemical/dye intermediaries (meta amino phenol/meta amino acetanilitye) falling under Chapter 29 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The said factory was a small scale industrial unit. The petitioners applied to the Government of Gujarat, Directorate of Industries for registration of the said factory as a small scale industry under the Industries (Development and Regulations) Act, 1951. The petitioners unit was granted provisional registration certificate by the District Registratio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... denying the benefit of the said notification during the period in which the petitioners did not possess valid permanent registration as Small Scale Industry. 6.The petitioners filed their reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 16th June, 1993 and referred to Clause 4 of the said notification which clearly stipulates that the factory should be registered with the Director of Industries as a Small Scale Industry and once such certificate has been issued with an emphasis that the unit has obtained the status as Small Scale Industry from 1st March 1986, it should be taken as sufficient fulfilment of the condition to avail the benefit and further stated that there is no specific mention in the Notification No. 175/86-C.E., dated 1st Marc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e petitioners did not receive any intimation from the CEGAT regarding filing of the said appeal memo. With the result, when the appeal came up before the CEGAT for hearing petitioners were absent. The said appeal came to be decided by the CEGAT in favour of Revenue by its order dated 15th November, 2003 accepting the stand taken by the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise in his order-in-original dated 29th July, 1994. The said order came to be served on the petitioners along with letter dated 20th December, 2002 issued under the signature of the Superintendent of Central Excise, R-II, Division III, Surat-I and the petitioners were called upon to pay the differential amount of duty. 10.On receipt of the aforesaid order dated 15th Nove .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orrected in the cause title of the memo of appeal so as to effect proper service of the appeal on the petitioners. 12.The petitioners during the course of hearing of the miscellaneous application before the CEGAT also produced original registration certificate showing permanent S.S.I. registration allotted to them. In spite of production of the said certificate, the CEGAT by a short order dated 23rd May, 2003 without addressing itself on the veracity of the original certificate showing permanent registration of SSI unit of the petitioners rejected the application and upheld its own earlier order dated 15th November, 2002. 13.Being, aggrieved by the aforesaid order the petitioners filed present petition under Article 226 of the Constitut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of his submission relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise, 1999 (112) E.L.T. 765 (S.C.). He also submitted that in view of the said judgment the Assistant Commissioner was bound by the contents of the said circular. The order-in-original passed by the Assistant Commissioner is contrary to the contents of the said circular and, therefore, bad in law. He further submits that the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) was perfectly justified in setting aside the order-in-original dated 29th July, 1994 by its order dated 7th August, 1996. He further submits that the CEGAT was wrong in not accepting the contentions advanced b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates