High CourtsDivision Bench(1989) 07 AHC CK 0104

Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Limited vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 24 July 1989 · Citation: (1989) 24 ECC 34

HON’BLE JUDGES
K.C. Agarwal, Acting C.J. · R.K. Gulati, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Writ petition No. 114 of 1988

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

6 paragraphs · 367 words

K.C. Agrawal A.C.J.

1.

The Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed by M/s. Kanoria Chemicals and Industries Ltd., Renukoot, district Mirzapur for the reliefs-quashing the Superintendent (Audit''s) direction contained in his letter dated 31.12.1987 and for mandamus directing the Superintendent not to press for recovery of credit of duty during the pendency of the writ petition.

2.

The petitioner is a public limited company and is engaged in the manufacture of caustic soda, chlorine, hydrochloric acid, stable bleaching powder and other chemicals at Renukoot. For manufacturing caustic soda the petitioner are using titanium electrodes duly coated with special coating, which work as anodes. The petitioners claim that it was since engaged in manufacture of the above articles use raw materials on which excise duty had already been paid and it was entitled to the benefit of the rules which are generally known as MODVAT Rules. The petitioners further asserted that MODVAT relief is not available for duty-paid items such machinery, plant, equipment, apparatus etc. as indicated Under Rule 57-A. The petitioner would be entitled to get credit for the duty paid on these items.

3.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State. In paragraphs Nos. 5 and 6 it has been asserted that the Superintendent''s report which has been described as audit report will not implemented without affording an opportunity to show cause to the petitioners. It was further asserted that audit report was not by itself conclusive of the controversy and that the authorities at the appropriate time will go into the various questions raised in the writ petition. It has further been asserted that for the present the respondent the excise department did not have a mind to withdraw the benefit to get credit for the duty paid on these items.

4.

After hearing the counsel for the parties it appears to us that the writ petition is premature and we need not go into various points raised in the writ petition. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.

Certified copy of the order may issue within two days to the counsel for the petitioner on his making an urgent application for the purpose.