Mahila Griha Udyog Lijjat Papad vs Commissioner Of Central Excise, ... on 23 October, 2001
It is emphasised here that such part deals with administrative and political set up and not for purpose of interpreting the Notification issued under Central Excise Act. That take up to another area which has been strongly argued for the department. he cited several judgments viz. UOI v. Haim Aghajan [Air 1968 Bom 366; CCE v. Neoli Sugar Factory [1993 (65) E.L.T. 145 S.C; State of U.P. v. Pradhan Sangh Kshettra Samiti [1995 (Supp(2) SCC 305]; Ublum Electrical v. CC, Bombay [1997 (94) E.L.T. 449 (S.C.) and other series of cases. We are of the view that those cases relied upon by the Ld. Counsel are not at all relevant for the purpose of consideration of the question before us. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that in any case even the Board's circular contained in Trade Notice No. 2/96 dated 3-1-96 reflected in 1996 (81) ELT T-47, in paragraph 2, the words start with the term 'doubts have been raised' and it ends with in paragraph 3 with 'specified production units in any area comprised in any town, the population of which does not exceed ten thousand'. In the impugned order, the Commissioner refers to in paragraph 10, 11 and 12 of the order in respect of this question which is reproduced as below: