Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1320 (PNJ)

N. K. H. Alloys v. ComOf C. Ex. , Chandigarh-i

2001-11-27

ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, JAWAHAR LAL GUPTA

body2001
Judgment Jawahar Lal Gupta, J. 1. The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of steel ingots and billets. It has filed this petition under Section 35H(1) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 with the prayer that the Tribunal be directed to state the facts and refer the following two questions of law for the opinion of this Court :- 1. Whether the excise duty on goods not actually manufactured can be levied and collected under Rule 96ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 when the duty is levied under Section 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 on the goods produced or manufactured ? 2. Whether duty of excise can be levied and collected simply on account of failure of applicant to strictly comply procedural requirement ? 2. Notice of the petition was issued. No one appears despite completion of service. 3. The factual position is that the petitioner had claimed abatement of excise duty on the ground that the factory premises had remained closed from January 16, 1998 to January 31, 1998. The petitioners claim has been rejected on the basis that the meter reading regarding consumption had not been intimated on January 16, 1998, when the production was stopped. The petitioners appeal was dismissed by the Commissioner, Central Excise and the Custom, Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal. 4. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the meter reading had been duly noted by the staff of the department on January 17, 1998. A copy of the relevant extract has been produced as Annexure P4 with the petition. Furthermore, it has also been submitted that the petitioner had conveyed the meter reading vide letter dated January 19, 1998. According to the report recorded by the Staff on January 17, 1998, the meter reading was 799370 KWH. 5. According to the intimation sent by the petitioner on January 19, 1998, the meter reading at 6.00 PM on January 16, 1998 was 799365 KWH. It has been explained by the Counsel for the petitioner that the difference of five units in the meter readings of January 16, 1998 to January 17, 1998 had occurred on account of the consumption in the office. So far as the furnace is concerned, it was closed. It has been explained by the Counsel for the petitioner that the difference of five units in the meter readings of January 16, 1998 to January 17, 1998 had occurred on account of the consumption in the office. So far as the furnace is concerned, it was closed. On these premises, it has been contended that even if the allowance was not to be granted for January 16, 1998, it should have been given to the petitioner from January 17, 1998 when the Inspector of the Department had recorded the reading. In any case, the petitioner having conveyed the reading vide letter dated January 19, 1998, concession for the period from January 19, 1998 to January 31, 1998 was admissible in view of the provisions of Rule 96ZO(2). 6. In the circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the questions as raised by the petitioner arise for the consideration of this Court. The petition is allowed. We direct the Tribunal to refer these questions for the opinion of this Court. 7. The recovery in pursuance to the orders passed by the Authority shall remain stayed till further orders.