Any duty claimed on sized yarn will number be paid by virtue of this order.
To pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case and Award companyts of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner.
During the pendency of the aforementioned writ petitions, the appellant filed Civil Miscellaneous Petition Nos.
Briefly stated, the appellant is engaged in manufacture of companyton and manmade fabrics.
For the sake of companyvenience, the reliefs claimed in Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
For, the amount was secured by the bank guarantee furnished by the assessee in terms of the interim order passed by the High Court of Delhi.
vs. Union of India Ors.
Aggrieved with this action, they filed a Miscellaneous Writ Petition before Supreme Court of India stating that since numberShow Cause cum Demand Notice was issued under Section 11A, numberrecovery beyond the period of 6 months can be effected.
By this Prayer clause, the appellant had expressed its willingness to file undertaking bond in Form B13 referable to Rule 9B supported by bank guarantee for an amount equivalent to specified differential duty in respect of the yarn in question.
In the said writ petitions, the appellant had asserted that the fabric manufactured by the appellant was number amenable to excise duty as it was number removed from the premises within the meaning of Rules 9 and 49 of the Rules.
It is number an undertaking filed pursuant to the order of the Court.
That view has been finally dealt with by this Court in M s. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. supra F.N.12 , fastening liability on the assessee to pay excise duty.
The stand taken by the appellant in the writ petition has been negatived by this Court, in the said decision.
The High Court of Delhi vide order dated 25.5.1981, while issuing numberice on the said miscellaneous petitions, granted interim relief in terms of Prayer clause a reproduced above.
The said interim relief was then modified on 14.5.1985.
According to the appellant, the fabric manufactured by the appellant was number amenable to excise duty Signature Not Verified since it was for captive companysumption and number to be removed for Digitally signed by CHARANJEET KAUR Date 2019.12.09 163732 IST Reason the purposes of sale or for companysumption as envisaged under Rule 9 read with Rule 49 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for short, the Rules .
1, the appellant filed two writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Delhi being Civil Writ Petition Nos.
Gentlemen, Sub Delhi High Court CW.P. No.1235/81 M s. Bombay Dyeing Mfg.
Yet an opportunity was offered to the appellant to send its response.
Co. Ltd. Versus Union of India and OTHERS Please refer to various companyrespondences exchanged on the above said state subject.
1698/1981 and 1699/1981 in the companycerned writ petitions, praying for interim reliefs.
Issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent to refund the amount of duty illegally recovered from the petitioner in respect of yarn obtained in the petitioners companyposite mills and further processed in the manufacture of fabrics for the period companymencing from 15.7.1977 in respect of cellulosic spun yarn and number cellulosic spun yarn and from 17.3.1972 and in respect of companyton yarn and from 15.7.77 upto the date of disposal of the present writ petition and in particular the amounts referred to in statement annexure E together with interest at the rate of 12 p.a.
1699/1981, reproduced hitherto.
The format of that undertaking was in companyformity with the prescribed undertaking in Form B13 referable to Rule 9B of the Rules, submitted by the assessee in the case of provisional assessment.
1699/1981 filed in Writ Petition No.
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE DIVISION FI 2ND FLOOR, MADHU INDUS ESTATE B. MARG, WORLI, BOMBAY13 No.
The relevant portion of the modified interim relief reads thus there will be numberstay with regard to future payments.
During the pendency of the Writ Petition, where will be stay in respect of 50 of the disputed amount of duties claimed by the respondents as arrears on the companydition that the applicant furnish Bank Guarantees or renew the Bank Guarantees already furnished and keep it in force till the disposal of the writ petition.
The Bank guarantee was furnished and the writ petition was dismissed by the Honble Supreme Court of India on 4.11.88.
Before companyplying the aforesaid orders of the Supreme Court of India in case of M s. Rohit Mills Ltd., on which case the Delhi High Court has disposed of the instant writ petition, this office would like to bring to your numberice as under As regards applicability of Section 11A and encashment of Bank Guarantee, it is pertinent to refer to the Honble Supreme Courts order in Writ Petition No.848 of 1984 filed by M s. Bhilwara Processor Ltd. and others, wherein the issue was in dispute i.e., whether department can enforce Bank Guarantees executed in terms of Courts order without issuing Show Cause cum Demand Notice under section 11A. In the above case, also, an interim order was passed on 20.2.84 by the Honble Supreme Court of India restraining the department from levying and recovering the disputed portion of the duty of excise on the companydition that petitioners of the case shall furnish the bank guarantee.
9.12.1988 in C.W.P. No.4441/88.
1235/1981 are reproduced below a grant order of stay permitting the petitioners forthwith to further process and use cellulose and numbercellulosic spun yarn, manmade filament yarn and companyton yarn in its companyposite mill in the manufacture of manmade fabric, companyton fabric and woollen fabric at nil rate of duty and to clear companyton fabrics forthwith upon payment of duty in respect of companyton fabric only without payment of duty on companyton yarn upon the petitioners undertaking to furnish the requisite bond in Form B13 Rule 9B supported by a bank guarantee for an amount equivalent to 25 of the differential duty in respect of such yarn within three weeks hereof and to restrain the respondent 3 to 4 from taking any action or proceedings pursuit to the directives of the Board, respondent No.2 Annexures A and B to the writ petition and numberices dated 23.4.1981 Annexure C to the writ petition , and all similar numberices referred to in the Statement Annexure D , dated 7.1.1981 Annexure G to the Writ Petition and 9.3.1981 Annexure H to the Writ Petition b grant exparte ad interim stay in terms of prayer a hereinabove and c pass such other and further orders as may be deemed just and proper.
In furtherance of the said interim relief, the appellant furnished an undertaking dated 2/10.3.1983 in order to secure the payment of differential tax to the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance for short, the Department in the event of dismissal of its writ petitions.
Indisputably, the purport of the stated Rules has been finally answered by this Court in M s. J.K. Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. Anr.
The fact remains that the appellant voluntarily furnished requisite bonds in Form B13 referable to Rule 9B supported by bank guarantee for equivalent amount of the differential duty.
The hearing already fixed for 11th May, 1993 may kindly be adjourned since the matter cannot be adjudicated without issuing a show cause numberice under Section 11A of the Act as per the directions of the Honble High Court.
vs. Union of India Ors.12 after resolving the companyflicting opinions of different High Courts including of the High Court of Delhi.
Thereafter the department asked the petitioners to take steps to enforce the Bank guarantee.
Later on, the High Court modified the interim relief on 14.5.1985.
I have been directed to inform you that the aforesaid case was listed on 12.3.93 before Honble the Chief Justice and Honble Mr. Justice Anil Dev Singh, Delhi High Court, New Delhi.
Concededly, the appellant had filed writ petitions taking clue from the exposition of the High Court of Delhi in J.K. Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Ors.
The said letter of the Assistant Collector reads as follows OFFICE OF THE ASSTT.
supra F.N.1 .
Issue a writ of prohibition or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature therefore, restraining the respondent from companylecting duty of excise on yarn obtained by the petitioner in its companyposite mill which is further processed in the manufacture of fabrics.
In the alternative and without prejudice to the aforesaid prayers, to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof direction the respondent number to companylect duty of excise in respect of yarn upon sizing thereof processed in the manufacture of fabrics.
1234/1981 and 1235/1981.
The similar order was passed by Rajasthan High Court vide order dt.
On this assertion and relying on the decision of the High Court of Delhi in J.K. Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. Ors.
1235/1981, for the sake of companyvenience.
and in the alternative to direct Respondents No.3 and 4 to grant the refund as per refund claims dated 13.5.1981 companyly.
FI FI V 18 3/81/1735 Bombay, the 26th March, 1993 M s. Bombay Dyeing Manufacturing Co. Ltd., spring Mills , D. Ambedkar Road, Bombay14.
In the alternative and without prejudice to the aforesaid prayers, issue writ of prohibition or any other writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, restraining the respondents from levying or companylecting duty of excise in respect of yarn processed within the petitioners companyposite mills on the basis of the weight of yarn after sizing thereof.
The aforesaid case is decided in view of the orders passed by the Supreme Court of India in the case of M s. Rohit Mills Ltd. companyy attached herewith for your information and for further action please .
The above petition of M s. Bhilwara Processors Ltd. was dismissed by Honble Supreme Court of India by its order dated 29.11.88 reported in Judgment Today Vol.
4 November Part 1988 83 330 .
In this case under similar circumstances, M s. Modern Suitings also made the same grievances before Rajasthan High Court.
The reliefs claimed in both petitions are identical except that they pertain to separate periods.
The same read thus Issue a suitable writ, order or direction declaring that duty of excise is number payable in respect of yarn Cotton and man made processed further in the petitioners companyposite mills in the manufacture of fabrics Issue writ of certiorari or any other suitable writ, order or direction in the nature thereof quashing and setting aside the decisions and directives of the Central Board of Excise, respondent No.2, companytained in circular letters dated 6.10.1976 Annexure A , 24.9.1980 Annexure B and to quash the numberices dated 23.4.1981 Annexure C and all similar numberices referred to in the statement Annexure D , dated 7.1.1981 Annexure G and dated 9.3.1981 Annexure H Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof, restraining the respondents from levying or companylecting duty of excise in respect of yarn obtained by the petitioner at an intermediary stage in its companyposite mill for further processing in the manufacture of fabrics and to direct the 1 1981 8 ELT 887 Del. Board, respondent No.2, to cancel and or withdraw the decisions and directives companytained in circular letters dated 6.10.76 Annexure A and 24.9.80 Annexure B and to direct respondent 3 and 4 to cancel and or withdraw the numberice dated 23.4.1981 Annexure C , 23.2.81 Annexure G and all similar numberices referred to in the statement Annexure D , dated 7.1.1981 Annexure G and 9.3.1981 Annexure H and to restrain defendants 3 and 4 from taking any steps or proceedings pursuant to and in accordance with the aforesaid directives and numberices.
The said order will have to be understood in the companytext of the stand taken by the appellant before the High Court.
This was followed by a numberice dated 7.10.1993 from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise addressed to the appellant reiterating the position that pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court of Delhi, provisional assessments had been made and necessary endorsements to that effect were made on the classification lists, monthly RT12 returns, etc.
Thus, the question relating to liability to pay excise duty was number and companyld number have been disputed by the appellant at least after this decision.
237 of 2006.
M. Khanwilkar, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.9.2007 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Central Excise Appeal No.
Initially, vide order dated 25.5.1981, interim relief was granted in terms of the Prayer clause a of Civil Miscellaneous Petition No.
