Skip to content


Azam Jahi Mills Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Hyderabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1983)LC583DTri(Hyd.)erabad
AppellantAzam Jahi Mills
RespondentCollector of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....the demands which were confirmed by the appellate collector be remitted. these are averments of shri nayudu and not that we know of the facts of our own knowledge because neither the show cause notice has been produced nor any details are given in the collector's orders. the order passed by the collector on 1.2.1977, a copy of which is given to us, must be mentioned in its entirety as below: c. no. v/18-1(50)4/75 m.p. dated the 1st february, 1977.from this is to inform you that the proceedings pertaining to the show cause notice of even number dated 18.12.1975 are hereby dropped.2. the demands issued, if any, by the assistant collector of central excise or by any other officer in respect of the yarn which was converted into hank yarn within your factory by m/s. ambaji rao & sons,.....
Judgment:
1. M/s. Azam Jahi Mills, Warangal, hereinafter referred to as the Company, filed a Revision Petition before the Central Government on 11.1.1977 against the Order-in-Appeal No. 1143/76 dated 1/6.7.1976 passed by the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, hereinafter referred to as the Appellate Collector, relating to confirmation by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Warangal of two duties levied, one amounting to Rs. 8,604.86 and the other Rs. 13,568.93. The periods for which the said two demands were made, the weights of the consignments as also the quantum of duties levied are mentioned in the order of the Assistant Collector as follows:i) 25.4.75 962. 40 Kgs.

Duty involved to 1913.100 " Rs. 8604.86.

31.3.74 34375.100 "ii) 1.4.74 1683.500 Kgs.

Rs. 13,568.93.

to 2664.900 " 2. The Appellate Collector partly accepted the appeal inasmuch as the duty of Rs. 8,604.86 was remitted but the levy of Rs. 13,568.93 confirmed.

3. For the Appellants, Shri S. Tulstdas Nayudu, Consultant, submitted that after two demands had been raised, as mentioned in the 1st para above, Show Cause Notice dated 18.12.75 was also received for breach of licensing provisions of the Central Excises & Salt Act and the proceedings were pending when the Appellate Collector decided the appeal giving part relief. He further informed us that when the Petitioner placed all the facts and represented before the Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad that there was no breach with regard to the issue of licence, the Collector not only dropped the proceedings for alleged breach, but also directed that the demands which were confirmed by the Appellate Collector be remitted. These are averments of Shri Nayudu and not that we know of the facts of our own knowledge because neither the Show Cause Notice has been produced nor any details are given in the Collector's orders. The order passed by the Collector on 1.2.1977, a copy of which is given to us, must be mentioned in its entirety as below: C. No. V/18-1(50)4/75 M.P. Dated the 1st February, 1977.From This is to inform you that the proceedings pertaining to the show cause notice of even number dated 18.12.1975 are hereby dropped.2.

The demands issued, if any, by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise or by any other officer in respect of the yarn which was converted into hank yarn within your factory by M/s. Ambaji Rao & Sons, also stand withdrawn.3.

You may resume, if you like, your operations by engaging M/s. Ambaji Rao & Sons, Warangal but before doing so, you should approach the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Warangal, who would advise about the procedure to be observed.

4. On a query from the Bench as to whether the copy filed is a correct one and conforms to the original one, Shri Nayudu accepted the responsibility that it was so. Therefore, the decision which we are reaching in the present case on facts and substance flow from our belief that Shri Nayudu has given us true facts for which he is owning, as stated above, his full responsibility.

5. Shri Nayudu also informed us that even though the Collector's order is of 1.2.1977, so far no refund has been issued by the Assistant Collector concerned or any other authority.

6. For the Revenue, Shri K.D. Tayal is present and submitted that in the absence of record, and since a copy of the Show Cause Notice dated 18.12.75, has not been produced he does not find himself in a position to controvert the facts as stated by Shri Nayudu.

7. After giving our thoughtful moments we are deciding this appeal believing the facts, as stated by Shri Nayudu at the Bar. If effect is to be given to the Collector's order of 1.2.1977, the result would be refund/cancellation of demand of Rs. 13,568.93. We see no reason or justification not to accept the appellant's appeal before us, the reason being that if on a given set of facts, relating to the period for which the demand was raised, the executive authority has taken a decision favourable to the company, judicial forum like the Tribunal should not take a different view unless it is shown to be against the legal provisions or perverse.

8. Therefore, while allowing the appeal, we direct that the appellant should be refunded the amount of Rs. 13,568.93, as stated above, if by accepting the Collector's order dated 1.2.77 the same result would follow.

9. Before parting we would like to make it clear that if the Revenue is to learn that the facts as stated by Shri Nayudu are not correct, it shall be free to come before us.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //