M/S Hindustan Granite vs Union Of India Rep By The Secretary on 24 March, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M/S Hindustan Granite vs Union Of India Rep By The Secretary on 24 March, 2009

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar

1 W.P.'?'699f08

IN THE HIGH COURT 0? KARNATAKA AT BANGALQ§i".}§~.V_

DATEE) THIS THE 2413 DAY OF' MARCH 2&9' V«-J: 3  _

BEFORE

THE HOWBLE MR...}US'I'I(3E D.;§2';%sHYLE«2§:iRA.:

Wm' PETITIQMIQ; :=699%3;;.:ciisF3 fr-'1*A'Rr 

BE:'I'WEEN:-     'V

M/S HINBUsTAN__G§§;;w1TE--«    " 

No.20, SUBRA£vi:~'JJ.Y}%P!;RA-,_V'--~__  '  '

U'I"I'ARAHALLI s{ILLA{}E," ' _  '

BANGALOF!--E---.-.569  ~

REPRESE?r.'sl"'i'ED"B'5.F_. H    _ -

SR1 M G ANANDA REEL}-Z)Y;   ~ ' ..PE."I'I'I'IONER

(BY saw, R B}{LASUBvRAMAl'§:I, ADVZ,

_ \' FOR 8 :3 HiREMAT;-T1,' ,§;§;v'. ,)

A;:«:i3:"--;  '"

' V'   1 V' miloﬁ nirma,

Rr:;¥>H.EsENTEﬁ BY THE
 SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT' OF
---  A. REVEWUE, NORTH BLQCK,

" .Vr~:§:$»v DELI-Ii.

   ;T§--iE COMMISSIONER op czzsroms,

 P.B.NG.54(}O, CERTRAL REVENUES
BUILDINGS, QUP3EN'S ROAD,
BANGEKLORE -- 560 001.



2 W.P.'?699/08

3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF
CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS DEVISEON,
CRESCENT ROAD, 29/2,
BASAVESWARA BUILDING,
BANGALORE -- 560 {)0}.

(BY SR1 NAGARAJ, ADV.,  ' ' ._ 
FOR SR} M V CHANDRASHEKARA REDD3', .. 
AI}V., FOR R1 AND R2) ' "

 RE$?C3.fJDENT.'§ '  1' " 

TPKS W.P. FILED UNDER'~....ARTI€'.L2:3. Q267¥.j'c>F.. 5'11-IE=7

CoNs'i'ITUTioN OF' INDIA PRAYING TO EIRECT THE
RESPONDENT 110.3 FOR REFUND...C§i?.THE AMGEJNT PAID AND

COLLECTED UNAUTH.0R.IZED'LY" jé Arm ALSO SET ASIDE.'/QUASH THE {)RDER3IN-'0R?1(}IN'2'§LADATED 08.04.2008 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT No.3, 'DE, ANNEXURE - B AND ORDER CONSEQUENTIALJRELIEF. V "V This §>e'tii.ic3Ii far preliminary hearing in 'B' group day, the made the foiiowinge ORD ER !§a,v'\gr"/§§// ' arises in the context of lay of excise duty _;}12._the pct5£1<5:ner while processing and exporting polished gxanite marble slabs manufactured out of blocks.

2. Ptztitioner ciaims that the excise duties had been on the ganitc slabs pmduced in the factory 0f the getitioner heated at Hosm? Main Road, Attibele Post, Anekal ﬁmeé' late far ths petiticimrr ':20 wake up much iatcr 53 W'P.'?£:'>99,!08 several grourzés, it is not necessary for this Ceurt to examine this appellate authority sitting in appeal over the order pass¢'ti--V '.'\ Assistant Commigsiozaer rejecting the refnnd appﬁcaﬁoﬁ:

10. In the impugned 0xﬁ.e;F Annexure - B itself indicates that._tb.€: p,s;A§*£i».A*.)11er ja" >' appeal mldﬁr 5360.128 of the Act; "'I.4:V_ the VV peﬁtianer had preferred aui' Ccgﬁimiéﬁioncr for Customs but it appear-s withdrawn the appeal an 27.1 approached this Court by V 1 1. Béﬂgieﬁt cf declaration of law as declaxtgbﬁ} «thé in the case of Amara Marbles I1::ét1st:ri¢s_ Limiﬁeci'4+#v§¥»}VC{211eCtor of C.Ex., Jaipur, evetn at ipaymenf co.11cc'£ic}n of excise duty am! if the .ﬁ:iE?§i1i£!'ZT1€I'_A 'ziuagﬁened the legaiity of such Ievy at that agit'a*£e 's_urv:h quesﬁvns in a refund appiicatien and ﬁ1I'1Zh.€I' 3 w.P.7699/08 declaration in favour of the petitioner about the V-:31': ' the excise duty as to whether the fseﬁﬁanerf' i$ "é1§Litiéd'f}fOi» claiming a reﬁlnd etc.

15. However, liberty. resc:1}1r:rVV1:"'t<;>"'t1:j1't: péﬁtioncfi to seek revival of the appeal ﬁled 13éf.i$m of Customs as the Iespolzdentsétave an alternative remedy in their .Qbijcc1{t§_13;' s'~£ati:~:Ii:x1:.11t..._.- T . '

16. "Wi'ih;<§1,1'{ f}ﬁS"}f>;Jssﬂ3i1ity, Writ petition is dismissed. _ ' Sd/-~ 'Judge

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court