TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1994 (1) TMI 95
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al, has filed this writ petition. 2. Brief facts are the following :- The petitioner is a manufacturer of sugar which is liable to Central Excise duty under Tariff Item 1 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. As per Notification No. 4-C.E., dated 1-1-1972, the Government of India have granted concession in the matter of levy of excise duty to such quantities of sugar a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dy paid was correct and the subsequent charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved. Thereafter, the third respondent, after following the usual procedure, by order dated 6-1-1978, revised the aforesaid order and imposed a penalty of Rs. 6 Lakhs (Six Lakhs) against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not actually supplied the sugar manufactured in its factory to the Gov....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r." 3. The question raised by way of preliminary issue by the petitioner before the Tribunal was, that the Special Tribunal has no jurisdiction as no question relating to rate of duty of excise or to the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment arises out of the facts of this case. According to the petitioner, the only question to be decided on the facts of this case is, whether the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e purpose of assessment. Such question shall be heard by a Special Bench constituted by the President. 6. But, in this case, it is clear on going through the records that the question that has to be decided is, whether the petitioner has supplied levy sugar at the disposal of the Government or not. If the answer to the question is in the affirmative, the petitioner is entitled to concessional rat....