High Court Madras High Court

M/S.Chemplast Sanmar Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of on 18 March, 2011

Madras High Court
M/S.Chemplast Sanmar Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of on 18 March, 2011
       

  

  

 
 
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED:  18.3.2011

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN

Writ Petition No.6817 of 2011


1    M/S.CHEMPLAST SANMAR LIMITED            
     NO.9  CATHEDRAL ROAD  
	CHENNAI-86.						[ PETITIONER  ]	


          Vs

1    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF             
        CENTRAL EXCISE LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT  
	NO.1775, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU INNER RING ROAD  
	ANNA NAGAR 
     (WESTERN EXTENSION) 
	CHENNAI-101.					     [ RESPONDENT  ]




	Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of Certiorari to call for the records of the Respondent in the impugned notice C.No.IV/16/475/2010-LTG4(C), dated 09.03.2011 and quash the same as the impugned Order has resulted in denial of a benefit of rebate by way of proposal to appropriate against the demand which is impermissible under the Central Excise Act 1944 insofar as the Petitioner is concerned.





		   For petitioner  :  Mr.K.Vaitheeswaran
		   For respondents :  Mr.K.Ravichandra Babu
 


O R D E R

This writ petition has been filed challenging the notice, dated 9.3.2011, issued by the respondent requesting the petitioner firm as to whether it would like to avail the opportunity of being heard in person, with regard to the amount of rebate claimed by the petitioner and with regard to the arrears of excise duty due to be paid by the petitioner.

2. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the writ petition is premature in nature. In fact, the impugned notice had only requested the petitioner to confirm as to whether it would like to be heard in person, in respect of the rebate claimed by the petitioner and with regard to the excise duty due to be paid by the petitioner. He had also submitted that a notice, dated 17.3.2011, had been issued, addressed to the petitioner, to that effect.

3. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to quash the impugned notice of the respondent, dated 9.3.2011. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.

lan

To:

1    THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF             
        CENTRAL EXCISE LARGE TAXPAYER UNIT  
	NO.1775, JAWAHARLAL NEHRU INNER RING ROAD  
	ANNA NAGAR 
     (WESTERN EXTENSION) 
	CHENNAI 101