Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Cce - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. these appeals have come before us on a reference made by the west regional bench at mumbai. after hearing lengthy arguments advanced by the learned counsel representing the appellant and the learned departmental representative, we are convinced that the benefit claimed by the appellant of notification 53/1988 and 14/1992 are not available to them for the simple reason that conditions required to be satisfied by the notifications have not been satisfied by the appellants. even no attempt was made by the appellants to establish the existence of circumstances entitling them to claim the benefit of the notifications.so on the proved facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that appellants are not entitled to the benefit of these notifications.in such a state of affairs, the question of law referred to by the west regional bench, with due respect to the members, are not to be answered. we decline to answer those questions because of the peculair facts and circumstances of the case when it is established that the claiments of the benefits under the notification failed in proving the circumstances warranting its application, this tribunal is not to go into the hypothetical question of the scope and binding nature of the notification. the question referred need be answered only in circumstances where assessee establishes the requirements warranting the application of the notifications. in the instant case, the assessee did not bring out any circumstance to establish that he is entitled the benefits of the notifications.2. in view of what has been stated above we do not find any ground to extend the benefit of the notifications, as claimed by the appellants.consequently, we confirm the orders passed by the authorities below.appeals are dismissed.

Judgment:
1. These appeals have come before us on a reference made by the West Regional Bench at Mumbai. After hearing lengthy arguments advanced by the learned Counsel representing the appellant and the learned Departmental Representative, we are convinced that the benefit claimed by the appellant of Notification 53/1988 and 14/1992 are not available to them for the simple reason that conditions required to be satisfied by the Notifications have not been satisfied by the appellants. Even no attempt was made by the appellants to establish the existence of circumstances entitling them to claim the benefit of the Notifications.

So on the proved facts and circumstances of the case, we are convinced that appellants are not entitled to the benefit of these Notifications.

In such a state of affairs, the question of law referred to by the West Regional Bench, with due respect to the Members, are not to be answered. We decline to answer those questions because of the peculair facts and circumstances of the case when it is established that the claiments of the benefits under the Notification failed in proving the circumstances warranting its application, this Tribunal is not to go into the hypothetical question of the scope and binding nature of the Notification. The question referred need be answered only in circumstances where assessee establishes the requirements warranting the application of the Notifications. In the instant case, the assessee did not bring out any circumstance to establish that he is entitled the benefits of the Notifications.

2. In view of what has been stated above we do not find any ground to extend the benefit of the Notifications, as claimed by the appellants.

Consequently, we confirm the orders passed by the authorities below.

Appeals are dismissed.