9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1975 (10) TMI 26 - HC - Central Excise
Issues:
1. Whether Excise Duty is payable on steel ingots when duty has already been paid on the ingot moulds and Bottom Stools? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim a set-off or refund for the Excise Duty paid on the duty-paid items? Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner contended that paying Excise Duty on steel ingots, on which duty was already paid on the ingot moulds and Bottom Stools, constitutes double taxation. The Court acknowledged the principle against double imposition of taxes. The Court referred to relevant notifications exempting steel ingots from duty if duty had been paid on the iron in its crude form. Citing precedents from Patna and Calcutta High Courts, the Court emphasized that tax should not be imposed twice on the same subject matter unless explicitly mandated by law. The Court held that the petitioner's argument against double taxation was valid. Issue 2: The respondents argued that the petitioner failed to follow the correct procedure to claim set-off or exemptions, thus precluding them from seeking a refund. However, the Court dismissed this argument, stating that if tax had been collected on a material, the authorities must provide a set-off or refund when tax is collected on the same material at a later stage. The Court ruled that the burden lies on the petitioner to prove the tax paid and the subsequent imposition of tax on the same material to claim a set-off or refund. The Court directed the petitioner to satisfy the authorities with relevant records to establish the tax amounts paid, allowing for set-off and refund accordingly. In conclusion, the Court allowed the petitions, quashed the impugned orders, and mandated the petitioner to provide evidence to support their claim for set-off or refund. The Court emphasized the prohibition against double taxation and directed the authorities to facilitate the set-off or refund process upon proper verification. No costs were awarded, and the security deposit was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.
|
