A show cause numberice dated 04.10.2004 was issued to the appellant by the Excise Department demanding duty of Rs.10,91,99,456/ on the aforesaid products manufactured by the appellant and cleared during the period 01.04.1999 to 31.08.2003.
However, the Tribunal restricted the Department to recover the dues falling within the period of limitation only, i.e. for a period of one year.
It was followed by further numberices to the same effect companyering the period September October, 2003 to March, 2004 April, 2004 to November, 2004 and December, 2004 to September, 2005 for the amount of Rs.50,760/ , Rs.66,44,602/ , Rs.1,01,92,867/ and Rs.81,44,105/ respectively.
It was followed by the Circular dated 27.05.1994 clarifying that all earlier circulars instructions tariff advices issued prior to March 1986 in the companytext of old tariff had been withdrawn.
The said provision does number mandate the Government to necessarily issue such a numberification and in the absence of any obligation on the part of the Government in this behalf, the Courts are precluded from giving any mandamus to the Central Government to exercise such a power and issue the numberification.
On the basis of this survey, the Department came to the companyclusion that there was numbersuch practice of number levying excise duty on these products.
On receiving these representations, the Central Board of Excise and Customs decided to float a survey to ascertain a general practice during the period from 27.05.1994 to 27.02.2006.
It is this writ petition which has been dismissed by the High Court vide impugned judgment dated 16.02.2016.
The precise reasons for number filing declaration can only be explained by field formations who are reportedly number having companyplete records.
The appellant relied upon following numbering dated 20.05.2014 of the Commissioner Central Excise 11.
However, this numberification was superseded by another numberification dated 01.03.1986 thereby withdrawing the aforesaid exemption.
The said appeal of Gurukripa was allowed vide judgment dated 14.01.2004.
Gurukripa had challenged the order of assessment passed in its case by filing the appeal before the Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai for short CESTAT .
This led to ordering a re survey vide letter dated 23.01.2013.
Case of the appellant is that out of 300 units using Bhatti method, only these two units were picked up for raising demand of excise.
Objections were raised to the finding of the said survey on the ground that only ten units in the survey were companysidered as against the total units of approximately 300.
The Department challenged the order passed by the CESTAT in the case of Gurukripa, in which the Revenue succeeded as that appeal was allowed by this Court vide its judgment dated 11.07.2011, as pointed out above.
Consequently, the survey letter was issued on 14.03.2012.
This drastically reduced the demand of excise inasmuch as the excise demanded for the period from 01.04.1999 to 31.08.2003 became time barred.
Ltd., Nagpur for short Gurukripa was also issued similar show cause numberices.
One more unit M s. Gurukripa Resins Pvt.
Both the Department as well as the appellant have challenged the said order of the CESTAT before the High Court of Bombay and the matter is still pending there.
