TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2004 (1) TMI 97
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al and thereafter, matter went to Tribunal. Meanwhile Rules 9 and 49 of Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as "Rule") were amended retrospectively in 1982 bringing the concept of deemed removal in respect of captive consumption. Respondent No. 1 thus became liable to pay duty on resins captively consumed. Before Tribunal, respondent No. 1 pleaded that they should be granted facility of proforma credit of input duty under Rule 56A of Rules or they should be allowed set off of import duty under Notification No. 201/79. Tribunal decided the appeal with the observation that the appellant had not paid duty on resin because of the judicial position, which was supportive of their contention that these goods were not excisable. Tribunal noted that under Rule 56A(2B) the Commissioner has powers to condone delay on the part of manufacturer in filing application for availing proforma credit under certain circumstances and so also the Commissioner had discretion under set off Notification No. 201/79 to condone non-compliance with procedural formalities. Tribunal remanded back the matter with the direction to the appellants to approach the Commissioner for exercising his powers under....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ty concerned to implement the order dated 2-4-1996 is illegal and liable to be quashed. In support of his submission he relied upon the decision of Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, reported in 2000 (119) E.L.T. 257 (S.C.) = JT 2000 (1)C, 453. 7.Learned Counsel for the respondents contended that order dated 2-4-1996 passed by Tribunal has become final as same has not been challenged in reference as contemplated 35G and inasmuch as no application has been moved for recalling or rectification of the said order and, therefore, said order reached to its finality. He further submitted that the order passed by Tribunal dated 28-12-2001 directing to implement the order dated 2-4-1996 is consequential order and can not be challenged. He submitted that once order dated 2-4-1996 had become final, said order has to be implemented by the authorities concerned and mere direction to implement the said order is only a consequential order, which was wholly justified. He submitted that, implementation of the order dated 2-4-1996 can not be challenged, once it has become final while challenging the consequen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... nylon flocks filed a classification list in which it was claimed that the manufactured product falls under tariff item 22-A. Assistant Collector held that the manufactured product was classifiable under tariff item 22-B and not under tariff item 22-A and the applicable rate of duty would be 25% ad valorem. The said order of the Assistant Collector was not challenged by either of the party and the said order had become final. The respondent M/s. Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. filed application claiming refund of duty paid alleging inter alia that the product in question were wrongly classified under tariff item No. 22-B, instead it ought to have been classified under tariff item No. 22-A and that the differential duty should be refunded. The Assistant Collector rejected the claim on the ground that the earlier order dated 21-1-1978 classifying the product as falling under tariff item 22-B had attained finality, and therefore, the claim for refund was not maintainable. Assistant Collector set aside the order dated 27-8-1980 and remanded back the matter with the direction to reconsider the matter on merit including the question whether goods were classifiable under item 22-A or 22-B. Assist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he order against which he had preferred the writ petition before earlier and he could not succeed. In Jagir Singh v. Ranbir Singh, reported in AIR 1979 SC 381, the Apex Court has observed that an authority cannot be permitted to evade a law by "shift or contrivance". While deciding the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court placed reliance on the judgment in Fox v. Bishop of Chester, (1824) 2B7C 635, wherein it has been observed as under : "To carry out effectually the object of a statute, it must be considered as to defeat all attempts to do, or avoid doing in an indirect or circuitous manner that which it has prohibited or enjoined." Law prohibits to do something indirectly which is prohibited to be done directly. Similar view has been reiterated by the Apex Court in M.C. Mehta v. Kamal Nath and others AIR 2000 SC 1997, wherein it has been held that even the Supreme Court cannot achieve something indirectly which cannot be achieved directly by resorting to the provisions of Article 142 of the Constitution, which empowers the Court to pass any order in a case in order to do "complete justice." 11.So far as decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd. a....