1999 (11) TMI 80

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....der Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is aggrieved by the omission of the respondent No. 1 to dispose of the petitioner's application under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and demand of duty without such disposal. 2. We have heard Shri Pankaj Bhatia, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Chandra Prakash, learned Standing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... actual production. 4. By an order dated 30th September, 1997 the Commissioner had determined the actual production capacity of the petitioner at 32,323.4145 MT on which duty of Rs. 8,08,085/- was payable per month. Against this, the petitioner moved an application under Section 3A(4) of the Act which was dismissed by an order dated 23-3-1998. The petitioner filed appeal before the Customs, Exc....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spondents are demanding excise duty in terms of the order dated 3-9-1997 or the order dated 11-1-1999 both of which do not exist. It is claimed that for this purpose the respondent No. 2 visited the petitioner on 22-10-1999 and threatened to attach the unit. 6. No counter affidavit is proposed to be filed and in the circumstances of the case and after hearing the learned Counsel for the parties....