Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 2]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Commissioner Central Excise vs M/S Dutt Multimetals Ltd on 17 March, 2010

Bench: Ashutosh Mohunta, Mehinder Singh Sullar

                               GCR No.2 of 2004                               -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                                             GCR No.2 of 2004

                                      DATE OF DECISION: March 17, 2010


COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, CHD.                           ...PETITIONER

                                   VERSUS

M/S DUTT MULTIMETALS LTD.                                   ...RESPONDENT


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA.
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.


PRESENT: MR. GURPREET SINGH, SR. STANDING COUNSEL
         FOR THE PETITIONER.
         MR. K.L. GOYAL, SR.ADVOCATE
         WITH MR. RISHABH KAPOOR, ADVOCATE
         FOR THE RESPONDENT.


ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA, J.(ORAL)

The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short 'the Tribunal') has referred the following question of law for adjudication by this Court:-

"Whether the Tribunal was right in holding that the sending of notices of closure/restart of production by the assessee to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner was sufficient compliance of Clause(b) and (d) of sub-Rule(2) of Rule 96 ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?"

Wherever the assessee sends a notice to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner informing him as to whether the unit is closed down for a certain period or that unit is to restart after a specific period then, in our considered view, that would be sufficient compliance of Clause (b) GCR No.2 of 2004 -2- and (d) of sub-Rule(2) of Rule 96 ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, all that the manufacturer can do is to intimate the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner, who in our considered view, would be the competent officer on whom information regarding closure or restart of the unit can be given.

In view of the above, we hold that sending notice in writing to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner would be sufficient compliance of clause (b) and (d) of sub-Rule 96 ZO of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.

Resultantly, we answer the question in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.



                                        (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
                                              JUDGE



March 17, 2010                        (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR)
Gulati                                       JUDGE