1110 NT of 1986 From the Judgment and Order dated 24.11.1984 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore Bench, passed in M.P. NO.
Mulye, J. held by his judgment that the writ petition was allowed to the extent that the demand for recovery of Rs.26,47,749.39 for the period 15th August, 1983 to 6th February, 1984, which was the period referred to in the demand numberice was quashed.
On 24th November, 1984 by the impugned judgment, the Madhya Pradesh High Court allowed the aforesaid writ petition in part.
Giani, J., the other learned judge, in his companycurring judgment set aside the two roders issued by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Ujjain Division both dated 5th March, 1984 as set out earlier.
1 is a Company manufacturing spun yarn.
According to the petitioners, in the manufacture of the said product they use as raw material cellulosic fibres and number cellulosic fibres.
Copies of these adjudication orders are at Annexure R/10 and R/11 respectively to the writ petition.
However, the learned Judge directed the Collector, Central Excise before whom the appeal filed by the petitioners was pending to decide the appeal in respect of the demand made by the excise authorities for the subsequent period.
It is an admitted position that the yarn manufacturing process used by the petitioners was with the aid of power.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, Sanjay Sarin, Abdul Chitale and S.K. Gambhir, for the Respondents.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The respondents are the original petitioners in the aforesaid petition.
1 wrote to the excise authorities pointing out that in view of the aforesaid writ petition filed by the appellant, the adjudication proceedings should be stayed till writ petition was disposed of.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KANIA, J. This is an appeal against the judgment of a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Jabalpur Indore Bench in M. Petition No.
The facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal can be shortly stated.
104 of 1984.
We propose to refer to the parties by the description in the petition.
The petitioners also filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excises Appeal against the orders of adjudication dated 5th March, 1984.
Gobind Das, Mrs. Sushma Suri, Mrs. Indra Sawhney and V.S. Rao for the Appellants.
The said classification list was approved by the excise authorities on 7th July, 1983.
This request was turned down on 5th March, 1984 and orders of adjudication were passed by the Assistant Collector modifying the classification lists and companyfirming the demand made under the aforesaid numberice of demand.
The petitioners thereupon amended the aforesaid writ petition filed by them and challenged the two show cause numberices as well as the said orders of adjudication dated 5th March, 1984.
The appeal is filed at the instance of the Union of India, Collector of Central Excise, Indore and two other excise officers.
The petitioner No.
This classification was on the basis that the spun yarn was manufactured by them out of number cellulosic synthetic waste.
104 of 1984.
