9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Revision of price lists for excise duty assessment. 2. Seizure of goods and trucks by Central Excise authorities. 3. Entitlement to seek quantitative discounts in excise duty payment. 4. Provision for release of seized goods pending adjudication. Analysis: 1. Revision of Price Lists: The petitioner, a manufacturer of aerated water and beverages subject to duty, challenged the upward revision of price lists by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise. The petitioner contended that the revision, done without prior notice or hearing, was illegal and sought a writ of Mandamus. The court held that the petitioner had alternative remedies under the statute, including appeal and revision, and declined to interfere. The court emphasized the statutory procedure under Rule 173C, requiring the approval of price lists by the proper officer, with opportunities for the assessee to present their case. The judgment highlighted the availability of appellate avenues under the Central Excises and Salt Act, indicating that the petitioner should pursue those remedies. 2. Seizure of Goods and Trucks: The petitioner also challenged the seizure of goods and trucks by Central Excise authorities following the refusal to pay duty based on revised values. The court noted that the seizure and the price list revision were distinct issues and should have been addressed separately. While acknowledging the petitioner's argument regarding past practices, the court emphasized that any instructions deviating from the law were not permissible. The judgment highlighted the requirement for goods to be accompanied by a gate-pass showing duty payment and removed within the specified time. The court refrained from issuing a writ disapproving the seizure, citing the availability of appeal and revision remedies under the statute for the petitioner to challenge the action. 3. Entitlement to Quantitative Discounts: The petitioner claimed entitlement to seek quantitative discounts in duty payment based on the price lists submitted. The court indicated that this request depended on the correctness of the upward revision of price lists. Given the pending adjudication on the revised prices, the court found no reason to admit this aspect of the writ petition. 4. Release of Seized Goods: Regarding the provision for release of seized goods, the court referred to Rule 206, allowing goods seized by Central Excise officers to be released to the owner pending adjudication upon execution of a bond. The court directed the petitioner to pay the entire excise duty on the goods based on the revised price lists and execute a bond to ensure the availability of goods for confiscation if required. The court dismissed the writ petition subject to this direction, emphasizing the need for compliance with duty payment and bond execution for the release of goods and trucks. In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of price list revision, seizure of goods, entitlement to discounts, and release of seized goods, emphasizing the statutory procedures and alternative remedies available to the petitioner under the Central Excises and Salt Act.
|
