CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1984) 11 OHC CK 0016

Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. vs Asstt. Collr. of C. Ex. and Cus.

Orissa High Court · Decided on 20 November 1984 · Citation: (1999) 108 ELT 358

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.P. Mohapatra, J · B.N. Misra, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
O.J.C. No. 2512 of 1984

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 339 words
1.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.V. Murty appearing for the opposite parties.

2.

Dispute in this case relates to the period between 17-12-1972 to 28-2-1973 and 1-3-1973 to 6-2-1976 and it was a part of the dispute raised by it in O.J.C No. 1071/1977 which was disposed of by this Court on 21-10-1982 with the following directions :-

"3. We think the appropriate way to dispose of this writ application would be to direct that the claim laid by the petitioner-company for exemption on the different grounds namely on account of the fact that its realisation is already barred by limitation and the pre-condition to earn exemption having been satisfied no duty was collectable under the Central Excises and Salt Act, would be appropriately examined by the authorities under the Act and the petitioner should be given adequate opportunity to place its case and a reasoned order in case the petitioners stand is not accepted should be made so that the petitioner would be entitled to avail the remedies under the Act or move this Court if so advised. We have not referred to the decisions or indicated any views as the matter is yet to be examined by the departmental authorities and expression of our views one way or the other might prejudice an independent examination by them. Until petitioner''s stand is examined and a decision is taken, no coercive action should be taken against the petitioner to implement the notice under Annexure 7 or consequential action therefor".

3.

The learned Counsel for the petitioners has urged before us that the concerned authority had no jurisdiction to issue the present show cause notice as per Annexure 1. This question of jurisdiction along with the other points raised on behalf of the petitioner shall be duly examined by the authorities keeping in view the observations and directions of this Court contained in the judgment noted above. Accordingly, we do not entertain this writ application which is dismissed.

4.

The Misc. Case is also accordingly dismissed.