2003 (11) TMI 108

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....B. Vagyani, J. (Oral)]. - Heard. 2.The judgment, dated 23-8-2002 passed by the CEGAT in appeal filed by the respondent allowing the appeal, is the subject-matter of challenge of this Reference Application filed by the applicant. 3.The relevant facts for the purpose of disposal of this Reference Application are as under : The respondent is engaged in manufacture of hybrid seeds. According ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he purpose of distribution of hybrid seeds. According to the Department, the respondent, therefore, is a manufacturer as defined under the Central Excise Act, 1944. 4.The respondent did not pay the duty. Hence, show cause notice was served on the respondent. The Department claimed the duty to the tune of Rs. 95,07,680/- for a period from April, 1996 to September, 2000. The show cause notice was....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ed counsel Shri Shinde for the respondent strongly supported the impugned order. 9.The Commissioner, Central Excise and Customs, Aurangabad mainly relied upon the case of Bajrang Gopilal Gajabi [1986 (25) E.L.T. 609 (S.C.)]. In the said case, yarn was supplied to the powerlooms by one Tejpal for and on behalf of Gajabi. The cloth was manufactured from such yarn by the powerloom owners for and o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... bags. The CEGAT has also observed that there was complete lack of appreciation of the facts and circumstances of the case by the Commissioner. 11.The Judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Ujagar Prints (referred supra) is the judgment by Bench consisting of five Judges. The judgment in the case of Bajrang Gajabi (referred supra) is of Division Bench. Therefore, the CEGAT preferred to re....