Skip to content


Shiva Shankar Ram, Proprietor, Sankar Glass Industries Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectExcise
CourtKolkata High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Rule No. 2060(w)/72
Judge
Reported in1979(4)ELT673(Cal)
ActsCentral Excises Act, 1944 - section 36
AppellantShiva Shankar Ram, Proprietor, Sankar Glass Industries
RespondentUnion of India (Uoi) and ors.
Excerpt:
- .....banerjee, j.1. in this rule, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the collector of the central excise and the appellate order passed thereon imposing a duty on the petitioner to the extent of rs 17,340.73 p. for manufacture and surreptitious removal of excisable goods without being shown in the statutory accounts. the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner moved a revisional application which is still pending. while the revisional application is pending, the collector of central excise issued notice on the petitioner for payment of rs. 17,340.73p. as adjudicated by the order of the collector of central excise.2. mr. majumdar on behalf of the petitioner contended that the demand is illegal as there is a prima facie infirmity in the.....
Judgment:

Pradyot Kumar Banerjee, J.

1. In this Rule, the petitioner has challenged an order passed by the Collector of the Central Excise and the appellate order passed thereon imposing a duty on the petitioner to the extent of Rs 17,340.73 p. for manufacture and surreptitious removal of excisable goods without being shown in the statutory accounts. The petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner moved a revisional application which is still pending. While the revisional application is pending, the Collector of Central Excise issued notice on the petitioner for payment of Rs. 17,340.73p. as adjudicated by the order of the Collector of Central Excise.

2. Mr. Majumdar on behalf of the petitioner contended that the demand is illegal as there is a prima facie infirmity in the order of the Collector of Central Excise. It is argued by Mr. Majumdar that one Babulal Mistri, Krishna Kamal Dutta Roy and another's statement was recorded behind the petitioner's back but the petitioner has not been given any opportunity to cross-examine those persons for deciding the veracity of their statement made behind the back of the petitioner. It is argued by Mr. Majumar that pending the hearing of the revisional application, the demand should not be enforced as against the petitioner.

3. In my opinion, in view of the facts as stated hereinbefore and in the facts of this, the demand should not be executed pending the disposal of the revisional application. 1, therefore, direct that the revisional application be disposed of by the respondents as soon as practicable and pending the disposal of the revisional application under section 36 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, there will be a stay in execution of the demand by the respondents.

4. This Rule is, therefore, made absolute to the extent indicated herein-before. I, however, make it clear that any observation made in this application will not be taken to be a firm finding of fact and the revisional authorities can decide the question of fact before them and dispose of the revisional application in accordance with law. The revisional authority will decide all the points raised in the revisional application. Liberty is also given to the petitioner to move again if he is aggrieved by the revisional order.

5. There will be no order as to costs.


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