1983 (10) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....aws. Prior to July, 1975, the products manufactured by the petitioners were liable to be assessed for the purpose of excise duty under Tariff Item 16A(i) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). The petitioners applied to the Assistant Collector on July, 9,1975 claiming that the manufacture of their products is liable to be assessed under Tariff Item 34A instead of 16A(i). The Assistant Collector rejected the claim by order dated August 7,1976. The Collector of Central Excise confirmed the order on August 29,1977, but the appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Central Board of Excise was allowed by order dated July 16,1980, and it was held that the products manufactured by th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd there is no reason why it should be heard so expeditiously. There is no merit in the application for adjournment and I have rejected the same. In the first instance it is futile for Shri Sethna to seek an adjournment on the ground that he was briefed by the Department only yesterday evening. The petition was posted for hearing today on the application of the petitioner made in the last week after giving notice to the Department. The petition was admitted on August 2,1983 and the learned Judge did not grant interim relief but expedited the hearing of the petition. Inspite of it, it is difficult to understand why the Department thinks that it can wait till the petition reaches hearing to prepare a return. In my judgment, the application fo....