CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1992) 03 MP CK 0004

Neo Sack Limited vs Collector of Central Excise and Customs

Madhya Pradesh High Court · Decided on 4 March 1992 · Citation: (1992) 61 ELT 433

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.D. Jha, J · A.G. Qureshi, J
CASE NUMBER
M.P. No. 1534/89

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

3 paragraphs · 360 words
1.

This petition is directed against the show cause notice dated 9-11-1989 (Annexure-2) issued by the respondent Department to the petitioner, whereby a demand has been made as per the classification existing at the time of the notice according to the Department. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid notice has approached this Court stating therein that this Court in M.P. No. 1205 of 1988 has decided the dispute about the classification and the order dated 7-11-1989 is very clear on the point as to under what category the product of the petitioner falls. Therefore, the Department should have followed the order of this Court and the classification of the goods should have been made in accordance with the direction of this Court.

2.

The Department aggrieved by the order of this Court has filed SLP before the Supreme Court which is pending, but no stay order has been granted staying the operation of the order of this Court and even the petition has not been admitted. Therefore, at this juncture there can be no justification for issuance of a notice ignoring the order of this Court. However, Shri Neema states that the notice has been given only to keep the demand alive in the event of the success of the Department in the Supreme Court and he also states that in compliance of the order of this Court the duty is charged under Chapter 39 of the Tariff and not under Chapter 54 or 63.

3.

In the aforesaid circumstances it is manifest that the notice has been issued only keeping in view some future contingency in mind. We do not want to express our opinion as to what would be the legal worth of the notice. But at present in view of the fact that the Department has given a clear undertaking that till the decision of the Supreme Court no adjudication or levy shall be made in pursuance of the aforesaid notice, no direction in this petition is necessary. Therefore, in the aforesaid circumstances this petition is disposed of accordingly with no orders as to costs. The security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner.