Aarti Sathe
Advocate& Solisitor

1. Ashok Iron and Steel Mills vs. CEGAT, New Delhi {2008 (221) ELT 181 (All)}:

In the present Petition the Petitioners have challenged the order dated 9th August 2001 passed by the CEGAT, New Delhi whereby the Hon’ble CEGAT had declined to grant interim protection to the Petitioner during the pendency of their reference before the Hon’ble Court. The Hon’ble High Court held that the Petitioners had not mentioned their financial position nor any undue hardship which would be caused to them if the stay order was not granted. The Hon’ble High Court therefore did not find it fit to interfere in the order of the Hon’ble CEGAT. The Hon’ble High Court while dismissing the Writ Petition, however observed that section 35N of the Central Excise Act, 1944 ( hereafter the said ‘Act’) corresponded to section 265 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and therefore the view of the Hon’ble CEGAT that the bar of section 35N also comes into play was not correct.

2. Haryana State Electricity Board, Steel STR Fab Workshop vs. ACC & CE {2008 (221) ELT 198 (P&H)}

In the present Petition the Petitioner have made a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the order dated December 23, 1998 passed by the Assistant Collector, Customs & Central Excise, Ambala City, whereby demand of Rs. 8,00,625-85 has been confirmed against the Petitioner on account of Excise duty, besides challenging the vires of “ Heading No. 73.08” including the sub-heads incorporated in section XV, Chapter 73 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (CETA). The Petitioners were issued a Show Cause Notice and were asked to Show Cause as to why excise duty on the fabrication of steel structure cleared from the workshop during the period from February 1988 to April 1988 be not levied and recovered under section 11A of the Central Excise Act, 1944 (hereafter the said ‘Act’). The Petitioners contended that the process in question did not amount to manufacture of any marketable goods and accordingly the Excise duty thereon was not leviable. The Hon’ble High Court however held that as the present dispute for the earlier period and the latter period was decided in favour of the Petitioners by the Hon’ble CEGAT, there was no justifiable reason to uphold the levy for the period in between. The Hon’ble High Court accordingly refunded the amount to the Petitioner of the duty paid.

3. Upper Doab Sugar Mills vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Meerut-I reported in {2008 (221) ELT 246 ( Tri-Del)}

In the present case, the appellant has filed the Appeal against the impugned order, whereby the Commissioner rejected the remission application for remission of duty on 607.90 quintals of molasses during the season 2003-04 filed in terms of Rule 21 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002. The main reason for rejection of the application was that there may have been loss by way of leakage while filling the molasses in the steel tanks at the time of getting the same filled in tankers for clearance. The appellants submitted that the CBEC by their Circular No. 261/15/CC/1/82/C.X.8 dated 6th February, 1982 has clarified that storage losses up to 2% may be condoned irrespective of whether molasses is stored in kutchha pits/tanks or steel/pucca tanks. The Hon’ble CESTAT held that in view of the above Circular and the fact that the Appellants had reported the loss of molasses from their storage tanks immediately, the remission applications were not rejected and the impugned order was set aside.

4. Sarvesh Refractories (Pvt.) Limited vs. CCE & Customs {2007 (83) RLT 738 (SC)}

In the present case the appellants have filed an Appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, being aggrieved by the order passed by the Hon’ble CESTAT. The Hon’ble CESTAT had upheld the order of the lower authorities holding that the appellant could not get the classification of ‘Loadall’ changed to Heading 84.27 from 84.29 as declared by the manufacturer. In so far as the penalty imposed by the authority-in-original was concerned, the Apex Court was of the view that a case for imposition of penalty was not made out and hence the order of the lower authorities was set aside to that extent. The appellants also tried to raise an alternate argument on the interpretation of Rule 57Q of the Rules. The Apex Court held that as the same was not raised by the appellants either in the reply to the Show Cause Notice or before any authorities below, the appellant was not allowed to raise this alternative submission. The Appeal was disposed of accordingly.