LAWS(GJH)-2008-7-137

HARYANA SHEET GLASS LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On July 11, 2008
HARYANA SHEET GLASS LIMITED Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition was admitted by an order dated 18. 8. 1999 and interim relief was granted by the same order after recording various contentions of both the sides and the peculiar facts of the case. Against a demand of Rs,6,76,07,490/-, the petitioner was called upon to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,30,00,000/- on or before 29. 9. 1999 and another sum of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- on or before 20. 10. 1999. The operative part of the directions reads as under :

(2.) THE petition is required to be decided on a limited count. It is an admitted position that the demand was raised for payment of differential duty amount vide communications dated 5. 9. 1997 and 14. 10. 1997, but ultimately, the said demand came to be quantified vide communication dated 14. 12. 1998 at a figure of Rs. 6,76,07,490/ -.

(3.) THE principal case of the petitioner is that even during pendency of the request of the petitioner before the Development Commissioner to extend the gestation period of 12 months from the date of re-starting of the production and before the request of the petitioner for conversion from EOU to EPCG could be granted, the three communications dated 5. 9. 1997, 14. 10. 1997 and 14. 12. 1998 came to be issued demanding the aforesaid differential amount of duty without issuing any show cause notice or without any adjudication order as to the liability of the petitioner. It was, therefore, submitted that the said three communications are required to be quashed and set aside. In support of the submissions made, reliance has been placed on the Apex Court decisions in the case of Metal Forgings v. Union of India, 2002 [146] ELT 241 and Akay Cosmetics Pvt. Ltd. , 2005 [182] ELT 294. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent authority was not in a position to dispute the fact that no show cause notice was issued and that, there was no adjudication fixing the liability to duty, on the basis of which the aforesaid amount came to be demanded under the impugned communications.