Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the order refusing waiver of pre-deposit and stay was liable to be set aside for want of proper consideration of the statutory meaning of "factory" and for failure to pass a speaking order, and whether the matter required reconsideration by the appellate authority.
Analysis: The exemption notification applied to Chapter 27 goods produced in a factory and used in the same factory for manufacture of other goods or as fuel. The dispute turned on whether the refinery, xylene unit and polyester staple fibre unit constituted one factory within the meaning of the central excise statute. The order under challenge did not address the statutory definition of factory or the relevant decisions cited on the point, and instead proceeded on a prima facie assumption that the units were separate premises. In these circumstances, the appellate authority was required to reconsider the request for waiver and stay on a proper legal footing, with reasons and after considering the relevant authorities and any plea of financial hardship.
Conclusion: The impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) for fresh hearing and a speaking order, with interim protection against recovery until disposal of the waiver application.