LAWS(BOM)-1990-3-11

BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On March 29, 1990
BHOR INDUSTRIES LTD. Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is directed against the orders dated 12-6-1977 and 23-12-1978 passed by the authorities in exercise of the powers conferred on them under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The order of the Collector of Central Excise, Pune is at Exh. D and the order of the Member, Central board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi is at Exh. E.

(2.) THE petitioner is a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and has its registered office at Bombay. The petitioner company has got two units, one at Borivli-Bombay and the other at Bhor, district Pune. The dispute in the present petition is restricted to the units at bhor. The petitioner company is engaged in manufacturing the product commonly known as pvc coated paper. "pvc" is short form of Poly Vinyl Chloride" which is a plastic raw material within the meaning of the said Act. The petitioner's product is sold in the market under brand names of "paplast" and "muralon" The plant at Borivli is called Lamination plant whereas the plant at Bhor is called Coating plant. Although manufacturing process is different at both the units the final product is one and the same namely Paplast and Muralon.

(3.) AS far as Bhor plant is concerned the petitioner company filed the classification list (Exh. C)in 21-12-1976 claiming benefit of the concessional rate of duty under Notifications 46/73 dated 1-3-1973, 27/74 dated 1-3-1974 68/76 dated 16-3-1976 issued under the said Act. The classification list filed by the petitioner from time to time is at Exh. C. collectively. On 13-7-1976 the officer of the Excise department carried out a search and they opinion that the goods cleared by the petitioner-company is not the same which is reflected under the classification list. The office of the Excise department therefore seized the goods and on 23-12-1976 issued show cause notice (Exh. D.) It is relevant to reproduce part of the show cause notice since the dispute centers round the validity of the show cause notice :