2009 (10) TMI 542

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....afar Moonis, for the Respondent. [Order].- The petitioner, a registered company under the Companies Act is carrying on the business of manufacturing of M.S Ingots at Kotdwar (Uttrakhand). Two consignments of M.S. Ingots were being transported through two trucks bearing registration No. HR-38 J 0017 and HR -37 A 4167 were intercepted by the officials of the Central Excise Department at District ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....p earlier, it was contended by the petitioner that no excise duty is payable on the goods in question and therefore, the seizure order is wholly arbitrary and illegal. This Court on 13-10-2009 passed the following order: "leard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Notice on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 has been accepted by Sri Zafar Munis, Advocate. The present writ p....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... said issue, may be, it was not brought to its notice. As an interim measure it is, therefore, provided that the said authority shall relook into the matter and examine the claim of the petitioners with regard to the exemption claimed on the detained goods. The authority concerned is required to take a decision within a week from the date of production of the certified copy of this order. The l....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of the petitioner that its unit is exempted from payment of Central Excise Duty is incorrect. The order dated 20-10-2009 supports the case of the petitioner that the petitioner is availing the exemption notification. The petitioner as a matter of fact entitled for the exemption notification is thus established. The detention and seizure orders therefore are bad. 5. In this view of the matte....