9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Validity of the notice issued under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Detailed Analysis: The case involves an appeal against the order of the Bombay High Court confirming the quashing of a notice dated November 9, 1963, issued under Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The first respondent, a public limited company manufacturing steel wires, had imported steel wire rods and manufactured steel wires out of them. The dispute arose regarding the excise duty payable on these goods. The appellant demanded additional excise duty from the first respondent, which led to the filing of a petition in the High Court to quash the demand. The main issue for consideration was the validity of the notice dated November 9, 1963, under Rule 10-A. The appellants argued that Rule 10-A applied, while the respondents contended that Rule 10 applied, and the demand was made beyond the prescribed period. The Court referred to a previous judgment and held that Rule 10-A was not applicable in this case. Even under a restricted interpretation of Rule 10, the Court found that the case involved the recovery of additional duty due to a misapprehension by the Department, which falls under Rule 10 and not Rule 10-A. The Court emphasized that the demand for additional duty, based on the original imposition at a lower rate, was covered by Rule 10. As a result, the High Court's decision to quash the demand dated November 9, 1963, was deemed justified. The appeal was dismissed, and the costs were awarded to the first respondent, thereby upholding the decision of the High Court and settling the dispute regarding the excise duty on the imported steel wire rods and manufactured steel wires.
|
