1983 (5) TMI 257

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cise, Madras and restore the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichy in the respective appeals. 2. These appeals coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S.K. Choudhury, Senior Departmental Representative for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel/authorised representative in the respective appeals for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following order : 3. These three appeals have been preferred by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madurai against the orders of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichy had demanded duty under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....V/68/ 15/24/81, dated 6-5-1982 C. No. V/68/ 207/82, dated 7-10-1982 3. ED(MAS) 70/33. 1979-80 17-8-1981 Rs. 20,582.04 C. No. V/68/ 15/29/81, dated 6-2-1982 C. No. V/68/ 81, dated 20-10-1982 5. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that these cases along with others had been the subject-matter of writ proceedings in the Madras High Court; that High Court had issued an interim order of stay regarding assessments by the petitioners; the Judgment of the Court was delivered on 6-1-1981; copy of the Judgment was made ready on 14-5-1981 and delivered to the Department's counsel on 26-5-1981. As soon as the Judgment was received, the Department examined it and then preferred the claims against the respondent-....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ds cleared for home consumption from the industrial units of the petitioners herein did not exceed 30 lakhs during the preceding financial year." Hence the plea that the Department was awaiting the Judgment of the High Court before issuing the demands is not an acceptable one. 7. The representatives of the respondents also drew our attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Mahaboob Bani Neevi, Oceanic Match Works, Gandhinagar, Kovilpatti v. Inspector of Central Excise, M.O.R. II, Kovilpatti in writ petition Nos. 4145 to 4155 of 1975. In a somewhat similar situation where the Department was awaiting the Judgment of the Supreme Court before issuing demands and hence got delayed. Their Lordships Mr. Justic....