MODI XEROX LIMITED Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, as also affidavits have been exchanged, the writ petition is being disposed of finally at admission stage.

(2.) The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 12-3-1996 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) and also the order referred therein dated 23-2-1996 (Annexure-4 to the counter affidavit).

(3.) The short facts are, the petitioner-company has its factory at Rampur where it is manufacturing photocopy/photocopier machines which are excisable commodities. They are also repairing these machines may where brought back into the factory for refurbishing, to bring them back to their original factory quality. The details of which is not necessary for us to refer for the purpose of the disposal of the present petition. Earlier the petitioner made an application under Rule 173H of the Central Excise Rules since nothing was heard from the Collector, Central Excise, Meerut, hence the petitioner again submitted an application on 9-1-1992 for relaxation of the period of one year upto a period of five years on which the permission was granted within a relaxation of time limit from one year to five year. The petitioner thereafter filed an application on 2-12-1993 requesting the Collector, Central Excise to enhance the period of relaxation already granted on 17-11-1992 from five years to eight years. The Collector, Central Excise accepted the claim of the petitioner on 17-2-1994 as since 1992 the petitioners have been regularly availing the said facility. In spite of this the petitioner was surprised to receive the impugned letter dated 12-3-1996 from Respondent No. 2 which records the rejection order passed by the Commissioner/Collector, Central Excise on 23-2-1996. It also withdraws, even in respect of permission granted earlier by means of order dated 17-11-1992. The challenge is, since no opportunity was given to the petitioner by the Commissioner before passing this order it is liable to be rejected. The learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Rule 173H of the said Act which is as under :