PEPSICO INDIA HOLDINGS LTD Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of india is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of central Excise, Mumbai-II rejecting the declaration filed by the petitioners under Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 contained in the Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998.

(2.) The controversy in the writ petition arises, in the facts and circumstances, that may be briefly noticed by us first.

(3.) The petitioners are engaged in the manufacture of aerated water, soft drinks, fruit-pulp based drinks. Their factory is situate at off Sion Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai. The aerated water, soft drinks, fruit-pulp based drinks manufactured by the petitioners are liable to the Central Excise Duty. The Assistant Collector of Excise did not allow the deduction from the price towards certain postmanufacturing expenses to determine assessable value for the period from 1. 10. 1979 to 30. 6. 1983. The petitioners were issued with 20 show-cause notices and in the amount of Rs. 98,37,567,51 was raised. The Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise took up the adjudication of the show-cause notices and passed an order in original No. 24/96 on 31. 5. 1996 whereby he disallowed the abatement towards post manufacturing expenses and trade discount (Rebate on cash sales). Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners preferred appeal before the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) , Mumbai. The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) , mumbai rejected the appeal on 14. 1. 1999. The petitioners claim to have received the copy of the order in appeal dated 14. 1. 1999 on 23. 2. 1999.