TECHNO PACK PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Hearing counsel on either side and considering all such facts and circumstances to which our attention was drawn and, in particular, carefully going through Division Bench Judgment dated 26/02/1991 in the earlier Writ Petition No. 9382 of 1990 filed by the present writ petitioners, we see no merits in this fresh writ petition.

(2.) The Superintendent of Central Excise, I.E. Range, Visakhapatnam issued show cause notice on 17th November, 1983 in exercise of his power under Section 11A of the Central Excises and Salt Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), calling upon the first petitioner to show cause why an amount of Rs. 33,87,138.13 should not be collected from it towards the basis excise duty and 5% of special excise duty on the basis excise duty for the period 23/10/1977 to 22/10/1982. Considering the reply to the said notice and after personal hearing, the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam Division-II, passed his order on 12/11/1984 holding the first petitioner liable to pay the excise duty as aforesaid. No appeal was preferred against the said order. The said order thus became final and binding on the first petitioner.

(3.) In the meanwhile, however, Central Government issued Notification bearing No. 208/84-C.E., dated 16/10/1984 in exercise of its power under Section 11C of the Act. Under this notification Central Excise authorities were directed not to demand payment of duty in respect of goods such as those constituting subject-matter of the aforesaid writ petition for the period 25/11/1987 to 22/10/1982. Pursuant to the said Notification the petitioners requested the authorities not to enforce the order dated 12/11/1984. The Assistant Collector of Excise replied that, since no appeal had been filed against the said order, it was not possible to stay its enforcement. The demand as per the said order was thereafter reiterated by order dated 29/05/1989 against which an appeal was filed to the Collector of Central Excise. The said appeal was dismissed. Further appeal therefrom to the Tribunal also failed. Hence, the earlier writ petition by the present writ petitioners.