Skip to content


Chaukria Engineering Works Vs. Collector of Central Excise - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1986)(6)LC196Tri(Delhi)
AppellantChaukria Engineering Works
RespondentCollector of Central Excise
Excerpt:
.....v. zutshi, sdr, for the non-applicant in opposition. the points urged by smt. wadhwa are that the duty demand relates to period 1.8.1980 to 6.4.1981, i.e. withdrawal of notification no. 75/67 dated 20.5.1967 till the concession was restored by notification no. 103/81-c dated 6.4.1981 amending the original notification no. 206/63-c dated 30.11.1963. in this connection, direction dated 16th november, 1984 under proviso to rule 56a(3)(b) of central excise rules, 1944, had been issued by government of india for according proforma credit to manufacturers. earlier the matter was remanded by the tribunal to the additional collector for decision in accordance with the direction of government {supra). the additional collector even then persisted in confirming the demand. show cause notice was.....
Judgment:
1. By the present application the applicant prays for dispensing with pre-deposit of central excise duty of Rs. 55,465.57p.

2. We have heard Smt. Archna Wadhwa, Advocate in support of the application and Smt. V. Zutshi, SDR, for the non-applicant in opposition. The points urged by Smt. Wadhwa are that the duty demand relates to period 1.8.1980 to 6.4.1981, i.e. withdrawal of Notification No. 75/67 dated 20.5.1967 till the concession was restored by Notification No. 103/81-C dated 6.4.1981 amending the original notification No. 206/63-C dated 30.11.1963. In this connection, direction dated 16th November, 1984 under proviso to Rule 56A(3)(b) of Central Excise Rules, 1944, had been issued by Government of India for according proforma credit to manufacturers. Earlier the matter was remanded by the Tribunal to the Additional Collector for decision in accordance with the direction of Government {supra). The Additional Collector even then persisted in confirming the demand. Show cause notice was issued much beyond the six months' period and the demand was, therefore, time-barred. Financial position of the applicants was not such that they could satisfy the demand.

3. The applicants are situated in Punjab which has for quite sometime been a disturbed place and industries have suffered financially. For all these reasons, Mrs. Wadhwa prayed for stay being granted. Smt.

Zutshi opposed the demand.

4. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced and material on record. We dispense with pre-deposit of duty demanded and stay the demand unconditionally.


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