TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (1) TMI 126
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he Superintendent, C.E., Ambasamudram that the request to pay the differential duty is not valid in law without following the due procedure laid under Section 11A of the Act. On receipt of the said letter, the first respondent issued a show cause notice, dated 14-6-1995 calling upon the petitioner company to show cause to the Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise, Tirunelveli Division (second respondent herein) as to why the differential duty of Rs. 5,13,80,385/- should not be demanded for the Core Spun Thread cleared during the period 1-3-1994 to 14-2-1995. On 4-9-1995, the Superintendent Central Excise, Ambasamudram in obedience of the order, dated 2-9-1995 of the Assistant Comissioner, Tirunelveli, detained the finished goods worth about Rs. 5.16 crores for non-payment of the differential duty of Rs. 5.13 crores. Aggrieved by that action, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 13292 of 1995. It was contended that Section 11A of the Act specifically lays down the procedure that the Assistant Collector Central Excise, after considering the representation of the assessee shall determine the amount of duty of excise due and thereupon the assessee shall pay the amount so determine....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssistant Commissioner, Central Excise Ambasamudram (second respondent), instead of third respondent, as directed earlier to dispose of the show cause notice, dated 14-6-1995 on or before 17-11-1995. The above order was passed by me on 6-11-1995 by permitting both parties to move this Court for any further direction, after the adjudiction is over by the second respondent. The second respondent, after holding a personal hearing passed order in Original No. 123 of 1995, dated 16-11-1995, adjudicating the show cause notice, OC. No. 1006 of 1995, dated 14-6-1995. By the said Order, the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Tirunelveli Division directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs. 2,56,20,679/- being the balance. The details are as under : Rs. The duty payable for the period March, 1994 to February, 1995 4,43,24,386/- Duty already paid @ 15% Ad valorem 1,40,75,501/- Balance payable 3,02,48,885/- Proforma Credit/Modvat eligible 39,24,602/- Net demand 2,63,24,283/- Amount adjusted towards rebate claim 7,03,604/- Balance 2,56,20,679/- Aggrieved by the said order, dated 16-11-1995, the petitioner company file....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner comapny in obedience of the order dated 20-10-1995 made in W.M.P. No.21340 of 1995 in W.P. No. 13292 of 1995 has paid a sum of Rs. 62.50 lakhs on 15-11-1995 and that therefore the duty liability for the period in question (14-12-1994 to 14-2-1995), if lawfully determined, would come to Rs. 79,56,913/-. The petitioner company has already paid Rs. 69,53,604/-. Therefore, Rs. 10,03,309/- alone remain as balance. 6.Against the Order of the Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise, Tirunelveli Division in original No. 123 of 1995, dated 16-11-1995, the petitioner company has to file an Appeal within three months from the date on which the order was communicated to the petitioner. The person aggrieved by the order has to file an Appeal against the order in question to the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli. The petitioner without availing of the statutory alternative remedy, has rushed to this Court by filing the above Writ Petition to quash the order, dated 16-11-1995. Even according to the petitioner, there is a dispute with regard to the quantum of the duty amount and the period for which the said duty ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er for modification of the earlier order, dated 6-11-1995 is concerned, I am of the view that the said prayer can be considered, in view of the change in circumstances after my order, dated 6-11-1995. As already seen, in the show cause notice, dated 14-6-1995, the respondents, quantifying the duty liability at Rs. 5,13,80,385/- for the period from March, 1994 to February, 1995 have demanded the said amount. However, the second respondent, in his order, dated 16-11-1995 (referred to above) determined the liability at Rs. 2,50,56,102/-. It is true that this Court has passed an order, directing the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 2.50 crores in four equal instalments of 15 days interval, taking into consideration of the show cause notice, dated 14-6-1995, quantifying the duty liability at Rs. 5,13,80,385/-. However, the said order was modified by this Court by directing the second respondent to dispose of the show cause notice, dated 14-6-1995. But in regard to the payment of Rs. 2.50 crores no modification was made. Liberty was also reserved to both parties to move this Court for any further direction, after the adjudication is over by the second respondent. Parsuant to the order, da....