CHHIBRAMAU COLD STORAGE Vs. CEGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners are the owners of a Cold Storage at Chhibramau, District Farrukhabad. On a visit dated 24.3.1976 the Central Excise Inspector found some R.A.C. Machinery parts installed in the cold storage of the petitioners. It was found that the petitioners had got the same manufactured themselves by their ingenuity at site and installed the said machinery parts in their cold storage. Since the view taken by the Central Excise Inspector was that the said machinery parts were excisable under Entry 29-A of Schedule 1 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, he raised a demand of Rs. 43,219.21. Thereupon the petitioners filed their objections which were rejected and the demand as proposed was confirmed. Appeals were filed by the petitioners which too have been dismissed by both the appellate authorities below. Aggrieved, the petitioners have now by means of this writ petition challenged the aforesaid levy of excise duty as well as appellate orders.

(2.) I have heard Sri B.N. Bhattacharya, Advocate appearing for the petitioners. His first contention is that the Tribunal has, in the impugned order, refrained from relying upon a decision of this Court rendered in the case of Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd., v. Superintendent of Central Excise and Ors. (1980 E.L.T. 600) which is in favour of the assessee and has erroneously agreed with the view taken by the Gujarat High Court in the case of Anil Ice Factory and Anr. v. Union of India 1984 (Vol. 15) E.L.T. 333. The argument proceeds that the cause of action for levy of excise duty in the present case are in Uttar Pradesh. Therefore, under Article 226 Sub-clause (2) of the Constitution of India, the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal was bound by the decision of this Court and it was not open to the said Tribunal to have agreed with the aforesaid view of the Gujarat High Court. To examine this contention, it is necessary to reproduce Sub-clause (2) of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The same reads as follows :

(3.) In the present case, there is no dispute between the parties that this writ petition is cognisable by this Court and this Court has the necessary authority to issue any writ or direction to the Collector, Central Excise Kanpur and others if it finds that a case for the issue of a writ or direction is made out by the petitioners. This Sub-clause (2) nowhere states that for a cause of action, wholly or in part, arising in Uttar Pradesh and in determination in regard thereto taking place outside Uttar Pradesh, as in the present case by the Customs and Excise Tribunal at Delhi, such a Tribunal is bound by the decision of the Allahabad High Court. Further, this is also not a case where the seat of the said Appellate Tribunal is situated within the territories of Uttar Pradesh so as to bind the said Tribunal by the decision of this Court. Thus, this contention advanced on behalf of the petitioners by the learned counsel has no substance and is hereby rejected.