Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

excise - classification - respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - it made representation before excise authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - subsequently central government issued modified value added tax(modvat) facility - respondent could not avail modvat facility due to wrong classification by authority - respondent took matter upto cegat - cegat dismissed appeal of respondent - respondent filed petition against dismissal by cegat - single judge allowed petition - hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

arun mishta, j.1. the present letter patent appeal has been preferred by the union of india and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned single judge in writ petition no. 4486/99 [2001 (129) e.l.t. 296 (mp.)]. the learned single judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in annexure p-15, p-18 and p-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of gilt pack limited v. the assistant collector, central excise, indore-1994 (69) excise law times 222 (m.p.) decided by the madhya pradesh high court.2. the respondent-company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Arun Mishta, J.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.).

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '510621',
			'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
			'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
			'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
			'judgement' => '<p style="text-align: justify;">Arun Mishta, J.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
			'sub' => 'Excise',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '510621',
		(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'Union of India Uoi Vs Primo Pick N Pack Limited - Citation 510621 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '510621',
		'acts' => 'Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H',
		'appealno' => 'L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001',
		'appellant' => 'Union of India (Uoi)',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'casenote' => 'Excise - Classification - Respondent was assessee engaged in business of textiles - It made representation before Excise Authority for classification of raw materials and finished products - Concerned authority did not classify and ordered for payment of excise duty as payable on finished products - Subsequently Central Government issued Modified Value Added Tax(MODVAT) facility - Respondent could not avail MODVAT facility due to wrong classification by authority - Respondent took matter upto CEGAT - CEGAT dismissed appeal of respondent - Respondent filed petition against dismissal by CEGAT - Single Judge allowed petition - Hence, present letter patent appeal by appellant department - Held, according to facts respondent made all available attempt to get proper classification of its product as raw materials and finished products - Concerned department failed to classify - Due to failure of appellant respondent could not avail MODVAT facility - Hence, there was default on part of appellant - Respondent accordingly entitled for classification of its products according to law - order of Single Judge upheld - Appeal dismissed - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1055.	Article 141;  [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil, S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ]  Dismissal of SLP arising from decision of High Court  Whether binding precedent Decision of Division Bench in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [2007(II) MPJR 229] overruled by Full Bench of same High Court  Prior to delivery of decision of Full Bench order passed in Division Bench decision assailed in SLP before Supreme Court  Dismissal of SLP by short reasoned order, though declaration of law, but High Court is bound to follow earlier decisions in field regard being had to concept of precedents as per law laid down by Apex Court and Larger bench decision in Jabalpur Bus Operators Association, reported in [2003(1) MPJR 158]. Court clarifies that Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361; AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP 
Articles 226 & 227; [A.K. Patnaik, C.J., Dipak Misra, Abhay Gohil,               S. Samvatsar, & S.K. Gangele, JJ] Power to issue writ under Article 226  - [per Majority] The High Courts exercise original jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and supervisory jurisdiction and the power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution. But, an eloquent and fertile one, a writ of certiorari is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction. Whenever word supervisory has been used in the context of Article 226 it is in contrast with the appellate or revisional jurisdiction. When a writ is issued under Article 226 of the Constitution in respect of Courts or tribunals it is done in exercise of original jurisdiction and the parameters are different than Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It is worth noting that the power under Article 227 was there in a different manner under the Government of India Act. Power of superintendence is distinct from the exercise of power of revisional or supervisory jurisdiction which is a facet of the power of superintendence. The confusion occurs when one applies the principle of equivalence or equates the exercise of supervisory power and power of superintendence with original or supervisory jurisdiction. There is an acceptable nuance between the concept of jurisdiction and exercise of power by certain parameters. Both do come within the fundamental concept of judicial review but the jurisdiction exercised is different when under Article 226 a writ is issued it is issued in exercise of original jurisdiction whether against a tribunal or inferior Courts or administrative authorities. The word superintendence has not been used in Article 226 of the Constitution. It is also evident that the term writs  is not referred to in Article 227. On a scrutiny of Article 227 it would be crystal clear that power of superintendence conferred on the High Courts is a power that is restricted to the Courts and tribunal in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction. On the contrary the power conferred on the High Court under Article 226 is not constricted and confined to the Courts and tribunals but it extends to any person or authority. Be it noted, Article 226 as has been engrafted in the Constitution covers entirely a new area, a broader one in a larger spectrum. When the Legislature has used the terms in exercise of original jurisdiction and supervisory jurisdiction it has to be understood that they are used in contradistinction in the constitutional context as has been interpreted by the Apex Court. The words of the Section have to be understood to mean exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India which is always original. -- M.P. SAMAJ KE KAMJOR VARGON KE KRISHI BHUMI HADAPNE SAMBANDHI KUCHAKRON SE PARITRAN TATHA MUKTI ADHINIYAM [3/1977]. Section 2: Writ appeal  Maintainability from order of single Judge-When permissible Held, Maintainability of a writ appeal from an order of the learned single Judge would depend upon many an aspect and cannot be put into a strait jacket formula. It cannot be stated with mathematical exactitude. It would depend upon the pleadings in the writ petition, nature of the order passed by the single Judge, character and the contour of the order, directions issued, nomenclature given and the jurisdictional prospective in the constitutional context are to be perceived. It cannot be said in a hyper-technical manner that an order passed in a writ petition, if there is assail to the order emerging from the inferior tribunal or subordinate Courts has to be treated all the time for all purposes to be under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It would depend upon the real nature of the order passed by the learned single Judge. The pleadings also assume immense significance. It would not be an over emphasis to state that an order in a writ petition can fit into the subtle contour of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in a composite manner and they can co-inside, co-exist, overlap or imbricate. In this context it is apt to note that there may be cases where the single Judge may feel disposed or inclined to issue a writ to do full and complete justice because it is to be borne in mind that Article 226 of the Constitution is fundamentally a repository and reservoir of justice based on equity and good conscience. It will depend upon factual matrix of each case. Dr. Jaidev Siddha v. Jaiprakash Siddha, 2007(2) MPJR (FB) 361: AIR 2007 MP 269 (FB) is not impliedly overruled in view of dismissal of SLP preferred against order reported in Rama and Company v. State of Madhya Pradesh [2007 (2) MPJR 229 (DB) (MP)].  -  Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. 4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector;',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => 'R.S. Patel, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => 'V.K. Tankha, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Madhya Pradesh',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '2001-03-15',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.',
		'judgement' => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.</p><p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.</p><p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.</p><p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.</p><p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). </p><p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'Primo Pick N. Pack Limited',
		'sub' => 'Excise',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '510621',
	(int) 1 => 'union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/510621/union-india-uoi-vs-primo-limited'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$caseref = 'Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector<br>'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => '<p>Arun Mishta, J.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>1. The present Letter Patent Appeal has been preferred by the Union of India and others, aggrieved by the order dated 15-12-2000 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 4486/99 [2001 (129) E.L.T. 296 (MP.)]. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition and the order dated 2-8-1993, 11-5-1994 and 9-3-1999 disallowing the inputs credit as contained in Annexure P-15, P-18 and P-20 have been quashed and the competent authority has been directed to verify the records and as appropriate order in consonance with law laid down in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore-1994 (69) Excise Law Times 222 (M.P.) decided by the Madhya Pradesh High Court.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>2. The respondent-Company submitted its representation on 8-5-1986 to the Assistant Collector to ascertain the exact nature of the produce and to give it proper classification and till the classification is made, the respondent agreed to be assessed provisionally as per the classification made by the Department. Sample was collected by the Department and the same was sent to the Chemical Examiner, Central Excise Revenue, Central Laboratory. New Delhi. However, the Excise Department took no action to give aproper classification to the product manufactured by the respondent-Company and insisted upon payment of duty under the head of 'Textile', Clarification was again sought but no classification was made. Later, the duty was paid under protest on 12-6-1986. However, due to inaction of the Department, the respondent was put to disadvantageous position. It could not avail the credit of duty paid on inputs i.e. the raw materials and continued to pay duty on finished products as 'Textile' articles. Modvat (Modified Value Added Tax) facility was introduced in March, 1986 by the Central Government. Under Rule 57G Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to 1944 Rules), in order to avail Modvat credit an intimation by the manufacturer to the Assistant Collector about the articles upon which he proposes to have Modvat credit has to be sent. Rule 57H of the 1944 Rules is a transitional provision. Rule 57H(l)(ii) of the 1944 Rules was deleted in the year 1989, the effect of the amendment was that credit was allowed only in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of the declaration but received after 1-3-1987. The said sub-clause was again introduced in the year 1991, whereby the Assistant Collector was empower to allow credit both in respect of inputs lying in stock as well as inputs used in the manufacturing of final product. The respondent sought permission for filing a declaration to avail, Modvat facility but owning to wrong classification, it could not avail the facility and the respondent paid the tax.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>3. Another Manufacturer - HDPE Woven Sacks/Tapes4/Fabrics filed a writ petition before this Court for declaration that HDPE articles are classifiable under Chapter 39 of the Act and not under Chapters 54 and 63. The Court allowed the writ petition. Therefore, the respondent filed classification list for classifying the product under Chapter 39 and Modvat declaration under Rule 57G giving the details of the goods manufactured and sought benefit of the credit of duty on inputs under Rule 57A on 18-12-1989. The classification was approved by the Assistant Collector vide order dated 25-2-1991. Three separate claims were preferred seeking credit of the duty already paid on inputs. The claims were filed with respect to (1) inputs lying in stock as on 21-12-1989 (2) on the inputs contained on semifinished/finished goods lying in stock on 21-12-1989; and (3) inputs (raw materials) consumed during the period 1-3-1987 to 20-12-1989. The Assistant Collector issued a notice to show cause as to why amount of credit claimed be not restricted to the inputs lying to stock and when the claim for the rest be not disallowed. The Department proposed to disallow the claim for the rest on the ground that on the date of filing of declaration, there was no provisions for allowing credit of duty in respect of inputs which have been consumed. The respondent, in the reply to the show cause notice, contended that right which has accrued to it under unmended provision could not be denied to it. The Assistant Collector allowed only the claim for credit in respect of inputs lying in stock immediately before the filing of declaration amounting to Rs. 2,66,814.00 and on the ground of amended provision, the rest of the claim was disallowed. Against disallowing the credit, writ petition was filed before this Court. This Court, in the case of Gilt Pack Limited v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (M.P. No. 724/91) had allowed the said writ petition and directed the Department to allow the credit facility on inputs. The respondent also in appeal before the Collector (Appeals) Indore, contended that the judgment of the High Court be applied to it. The claimwas rejected by the Collector (Appeals) Indore on 11-5-1994. Writ Petition No. 2789/94 was filed. Since an appeal was pending before the CEGAT, the writ petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh writ petition in case necessity arises. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed by the CEGAT on the ground of amendment made in Rule 57H in the year 1989. The order passed by the CEGAT was challenged before the Single Bench. The case of the Revenue (present appellants) was that there was no erroneous classification made. If the respondent was aggrieved by the Department's stands it should have challenged the classification and after lapse of time the respondent could not agitate the issue.',
	(int) 4 => '<p>4. Learned Counsel for the appellants urged that the decision of the Single Bench is bad in law and question cannot be re-opened. Learned Counsel for the appellants has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the caseof Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur v. Flock (India) Private Limited, 2000 (120) E.L.T. 285 (S.C.). ',
	(int) 5 => '<p>5. Learned Single Judge has distinguished the aforesaid case on the ground that in the said case, the assessee had questioned the order by filing a refund claim on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing the earlier order. In the instant case, the facts are clear that right from the beginning, the respondent has been agitating the matter and it had filed requisite declaration in the year 1989 which ought to have been considered. The respondent was deprived to availing the facility of MODVAT credit owing to the wrong classification. For that the respondent should not be faulted. Thereafter, it had agitated the question in appeal up to the CEGAT. Thus, the facts of the case of Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Indore (supra) and of the present case are the same. The view taken by the learned Single Judge calls for no interference in the present appeal. The appeal is dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 6 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 7
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Excise
Court	Madhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On	Mar-15-2001
Case Number	L.P.A. No. 16 of 2001
Judge	Bhawani Singh, C.J. and ;Arun Mishra, J.
Reported in	2002(142)ELT562(MP); 2001(5)MPHT95; 2001(3)MPLJ50
Acts	Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rule 57H
Appellant	Union of India (Uoi)
Respondent	Primo Pick N. Pack Limited
Appellant Advocate	R.S. Patel, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	V.K. Tankha, Adv.
Cases Referred	Gilt Pack Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Primo Pick N. Pack Limited - Court Judgment