9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Determining liability under Tariff Item No. 19I(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act of 1944 based on evidence, legality of challenging orders under Article 226 of the Constitution after withdrawing revision petition, application of methodology in determining excise duty, relevance of collected samples, violation of Principle of audi alteram partem, quashing impugned orders. Analysis: The petitioner, a textile manufacturer, was involved in a dispute regarding the excise duty on a textile item 'X-40, dedsuti' for the period from 1-1-1970 to 31-12-1970. The issue arose when the Superintendent of Central Excise issued a show cause notice claiming a difference in excise duty payment under Tariff Item No. 19I(1) instead of 19I(2) as claimed by the petitioner. The petitioner contended that the duty already paid was in accordance with circular instructions issued by the Board. However, the Assistant Collector and the Collector upheld the show cause notice, leading to the petitioner filing a revision petition before the Government of India and subsequently a writ petition under Article 226 challenging the orders. The central argument put forth by the petitioner was that the orders determining liability under Tariff Item No. 19I(1) were based on no evidence and were illegal. The petitioner emphasized that the evidence considered, such as a sample of bleached variety and a grey warehouse register, was irrelevant to the manufactured article in question. The petitioner argued that the correct sample, 'Looms State grey X-40 dedsuti,' should have been considered, but the authorities failed to do so. The respondents, represented by the Central Government Senior Standing Counsel, contended that the petitioner, having withdrawn the revision petition before the Government, should not be allowed to challenge the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the Court rejected this preliminary objection, emphasizing that the delay in the revision process and the pressing demand for payment by the original authority justified the petitioner's approach to the Court. Regarding the methodology for determining the excise duty classification, both parties agreed on the methodology outlined in the circular instructions issued by the Board. The Court found that the authorities had not properly applied this methodology to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially concerning the relevant sample to be considered. The reliance on the grey warehouse register, which was not available during the determination and is still unavailable, was deemed irrelevant and a violation of the Principle of audi alteram partem. Ultimately, the Court held that the impugned orders were to be quashed as they were based on no legal evidence. The Court made the rule absolute, quashed the orders, and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
|
