Chandi Prasad & Ors vs Jagdish Prasad & Ors on 1 October, 2004
According to Mr.Devinath, in absence of any evidence of diversion of the petitioner's consignments to the domestic market, and in the face of the admitted factum of export thereof, absence of any drug licence of the petitioner to manufacture the same products with pharmacopoeia standards did not, by any means, signify any attempt on its part to export goods not manufactured by it for evading central excise duty. The learned counsel, therefore, has insisted that the withdrawal of the proof of export and the proceedings initiated by the show cause notice dated 27.10.2006 ought to be declared null and void and the impugned decisions of the appellate/revisional authority under the Act be set aside. To reinforce his contentions, reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise, 1996 (82) E.L.T.172 (S.C.); Chandi Prasad & Ors. Vs. Jagdish Prasad & Ors., (2004) 8 SCC 724; Coal India Ltd.& Anr. Vs. Ujjal Transport & Ors., (2011) 1 SCC 117 and of the Bombay High Court in Global Traders Vs. Union of India, 2004(174) ELT 434; Vimal Nath Vs. Union of India, 2008(232) E.L.T. 592 (Bom.).