9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to notice issued by Assistant Collector, Central Excise - Alleged violation of Central Excise Rules - Application of Rule 9(2) - Assessment of excisable goods - Clandestine removal - Rule 56A - Financial recovery authority - Revisional order validity. Analysis: 1. The petitioner challenged a notice from the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, regarding alleged violations of Central Excise Rules. The petitioner manufactured cotton fabrics from yarn obtained from the market and its own factory. The petitioner maintained necessary registers and made adjustments for excise duty. The petitioner argued that there was no clandestine removal of goods as excise authorities were aware of the removals. Reference was made to legal precedents to support the argument that the notice lacked grounds for penalty imposition. 2. The respondents contended that no assessment had been made, allowing them to invoke Rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules. They argued that mere adjustments without proper assessment did not constitute assessment. The effect of R.T. 12 forms was discussed, with the respondents claiming that the approval of these forms was routine and did not equate to a final assessment. 3. The Court rejected the respondent's contentions for several reasons. It emphasized that the R.T. 12 form, required under Rule 173G, aimed to finalize assessments based on returns. The show cause notice itself acknowledged completed assessments. The Court dismissed the argument that assessments were invalid due to the petitioner's reporting in the R.T. 12 form, highlighting the importance of statutory duties in assessments to prevent arbitrary reopening of assessments. 4. Even if there was no assessment, Rule 9(2) could not apply as there was no clandestine removal. Citing legal precedent, the Court clarified that Rule 9(2) required clandestine removal and non-assessment for its application. The Court noted the Assistant Collector's role in assessing excise duty and distinguished a previous case where the dispute centered on price lists, unlike the present case of a complete assessment. 5. The Court directed the issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the impugned show cause notice and associated orders. It also mandated a writ of mandamus to prevent the respondents from making any demands based on the notice and orders. The Court found no grounds for costs, making the rule absolute in the specified aspects.
|
