Quashed

Ceat Ltd.and Anr. v. the Union of India and Anr.

Bombay HC17 Mar 2006WP/1967/1999

Download

Case brief

from the order text

What is this about?

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL…

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORIGINAL SIDE

¶3

WRIT PETITION NO.1967 OF 1999

¶4

1. M/s.Ceat Limited, a company
incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956 and having its Registered Office at 463, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 025.
2. Mr.Udyan Batukrai Mehta, of Mumbai
Indian Inhabitant residing at Anil
Building, Indranarayan Road, Mumbai 400 054.	Petitioners
versus
1. The Union of India
2. The Deputy Commissioner of
Central Excise, Bhandup Division,
Mumbai-II having its office at Mid-Town Plaza, Shivaji Nagar, Thane 400 604.
3. The Superintendent of Central Excise,
Range III, Division Bhandup,
having his office at C/o.Ceat Ltd. Bhandup, Mumbai 400 078.	Respondents
Mr.D.B.Shroff, Senior Counsel with Mr.H.B.Daruwalla and Mr.H.N.Vakil, Advocates i/b.M/s.Mulla & Mulla for the petitioners.
Mr.A.J. Rana, Senior Counsel with Mr.P.S.Jetley, Advocate for the respondents.
CORAM : R. M. LODHA & J.P. DEVADHAR,JJ .
DATED : 17th March, 2006
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per R.M.Lodha,J.). We heard Mr.D.B.Shroff, the	learned senior counsel

¶5

for the petitioners and Mr.A.J.Rana, the learned senior

¶6

Ceat Ltd.and Anr. Vs the Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Bombay HC (2006)

¶10

" Leave to amend the writ petition draft handed in. Amendment to be carried out within two weeks.	in terms of
2. Rule. We have heard the	learned counsel
for the revenue. We are	not, prima-facie,
satisfied that the impugned order	does not
make a departure from	the Provisional
Assessment Order dated 17/12/1997.	In view of
the judgment of the Supreme Cou	rt in Collector
of Central Excise, Patna vs. reported in 1994 )71) E.L.T.324	I.T.C. Limited, (S.C.), the
appropriate officer could not have departure without issuing a	made this previous show
cause Notice indicating the grounds	on which
he proposed to depart from	the provisional
order. This action on the	part of the
Assistant Commissioner may also	fall within
the province of the express	ion "Reassessment"
... used in Rule 173 C(4). we are inclined to grant the interim relief in the present writ petition.	For both reasons,

¶12

	4.	This	interim re	lief do	es not	prevent	the
	Revenue	from	withdrawi	ng t	he impu	gned	order,
	issuing a hearing to the pet finalisation of the	Show itioners wit Provisiona	Cause h regard to the l Assessment."	Notice	and	giving a	fresh
3.	Pursuant	to the	aforesaid	interim	order	and in	the
light	of the	liberty	granted	to the	revenue	in	issuing
show	cause	notice	and giving	the	petitioners	a	fresh
hearing	with	regard	to	the	finalisation	of	the
Provisional	Asse	ssment,	the		Assistant	Comm	issioner,.
Central	Excise,	Bha	ndup Div	ision,	Mumbai-III	had	issued

¶14

show	cause	notice	to	the petitioners	on 14th	February,
2006	calling	upon	the	petitioners to	show cause as	to
why	deductions	c	laimed	by the	assessee be	not
reconsidere	d	and	Pr	ovisional Assessme	nt be rec	onsidered
for	finalisation.		We	are informed tha	t the order	in
original	(Exhibit	"	J")	has already been	set aside	in
appeal	by	the	Com	missioner (Appeals)	on 15th	January,
2002.	However	, the		Commissioner (Appe	als) has asked	the
Assistant	Commi	ssioner	to	act as per	the interim	order
passed	by this	Court	on	22nd November	, 1999.	Obviously,
upon	setting	aside	th	e order in	original (Exhibit	"J"),
the	demand (	Exhibit	"	K-1") does	not survive	and,
consequent	ly, the		encash	ment of Bank	Guarantee in	the

(i)	The	respondents	shall	pay	back	to	the
	petitioner	a sum	of	Rs	.37.5	lacs	that
	they	recovered by	way	of	enc	ashment	of
	Bank Guara	ntee within four weeks	from
	today.
(ii)	The	petitioners			are		directed,

¶20

simultaneous	ly,	to		furnish Bank
Guarantee	in	the	sum	of Rs.37.5 lacs
within	four	weeks	from	today. The said
Bank	Guara	ntee	shall	remain operative
until	the		finalisation	of Provisional
Assessment	p	ursuant	to	the Show Cause
Notice	dated	14th	February,	2006 and the
expiry	of	the	period	of limitation for

Ceat Ltd.and Anr. v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Gamnon India Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sohanbhai Soni Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Vinodbhai Patel Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Owen Richard Bernard Roncon Vs Mary Philomena Alias Millie Ronocon Nee D'Souza

Ceat Ltd.and Anr. v. the Union of India and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Parties & counsel

Case details

Similar cases

Gamnon India Ltd. and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sohanbhai Soni Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Vinodbhai Patel Vs Union of India and 2 Ors.

Owen Richard Bernard Roncon Vs Mary Philomena Alias Millie Ronocon Nee D'Souza

A compact analysis

Coram

M/S. Graphite India Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Madhukar Uttamrao Suryawanshi and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Ors.

The		Assistant	Commis	sioner,	Central
Excise,		Bhandup	Division,	Mumbai-III	is
expected	to	complete	the	finalisation	of
Provisional		Assessment	pursuant	to	the