NATIONAL WINDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Bharat Ji Agarwal, the learned counsel representing the petitioner and Shri Shishir Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by the two notices dated 16-11-1990, issued to it under Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter called the Rules), read with proviso to Section 11 A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act), copies whereof are annexures 21 and 22 to the petition.

(3.) The impugned notices are demand-cum-show cause notices and are based on the assertion that during the given period the petitioner collected from the customers Dharmada charges on the sale of fans manufactured by it but did not declare the same in the price list with the intention of evading payment of Central Excise Duty.