PACKAGING INDIA PVT. LTD. Vs. THE JOINT SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL POLICY AND PROMOTION) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THRUST Industries have been catagorised in Notification 49. According to Appellant, by mistake, it indicated that products manufactured by it are covered by Notification 49. According to Appellant, products manufactured by it are covered by Notification 50. According to Appellant, it is entitled to exemption of excise duty leviable in respect of manufacturers made by it, inasmuch as, its factory is located at a place, in respect whereof such exemption is available. It is also the contention of the Appellant that although by mistake it had indicated that products manufactured by it fall under Notification 49 but, in fact, it had supplied all necessary information at every stage, which would demonstrate that products manufactured by it were covered by Notification 50 and, accordingly, the Appellant was entitled to excise exemption. It is the contention of the Appellant that since Appellant had, by mistake, indicated that its products are covered by Notification 49, excise authorities held out that Appellant will not be entitled to any exemption since products manufactured by it do not fall under Notification 49. Appellant, accordingly, made representations indicating that it made a genuine mistake and, accordingly, it should be permitted to remove such mistake. Since the representations were not being considered, Appellant approached this Court and filed a writ petition. The Court directed the representation of the Appellant to be considered and decided in accordance with law. Since then the representation has been decided against the Appellant. While such decision was taken, it was indicated that henceforth the Appellant shall be liable to pay excise duty at the time of removal of goods produced by it from its factory. Appellant, accordingly, approached this Court once again by filing another writ petition. The said writ petition has been dismissed only on the ground that the order passed is appealable and since an alternative forum is available for the Appellant to approach, the writ petition should not be entertained . The main issue in the writ petition seems to be, what should happen until such time the appeal or the stay petition is decided? Will it be obligatory on the part of the Appellant to pay excise duty despite, as has been claimed, the same is exempted?

(2.) IN view of what has been stated above, we admit the appeal. For the same reason, we have heard the appeal on its merit by consent of the parties.

(3.) IN those circumstances, we dispose of the appeal by directing the Appellant to prefer an appeal within a month from today and simultaneously therewith to file an application for stay. Until one month from today and until the stay application is decided by the appellate authority, we restrain collection of excise duty at the time of removal of goods from the factory of the Appellant, subject to the undertaking recorded herein of the Appellant that in the event appeal is decided against the Appellant, it shall pay excise duty of the removed goods to be effected from today until the date as mentioned above.