ANIL KUMAR SUD Vs. STATE OF UTTARANCHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P .C. Heard Sri Manoj Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel for State of Uttaranchal/respondents, and Sri Arvind Vashishtha, learned Asstt. Solicitor General for Union of India.

(2.) ALL these writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the demand notices issued to them under the Central Excise Act, for recovery of excise duty on resin.

(3.) THE grounds on which the petitioners have assailed the impugned notices are that the resin is not mentioned in the Notification rather; olio resin is mentioned. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the resin is a natural produce and there involve no process for production or extracting the resin. It is not produced by applying the manufacture process. He further submits that resin has been defined under the U.P. Resin And Other Forest Produce (Regulation Of Trade), Act no. 13 of 1976. The word resin has been defined u/s 2(d) of the said Act, which meant that secretion extracted by tapping from Chir or Kail trees.