9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal and limitation period. 2. Jurisdiction to make a "best judgment" assessment. 3. Applicability of Rule 11 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. 4. Applicability of Rule 9(2) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. 5. Applicability of Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Maintainability of the Appeal and Limitation Period: The respondent contended that the appeal was barred by limitation. The timeline of events was scrutinized, including the dates of application for a certified copy, requisition for drawing up the order, and the actual filing of the appeal. The court examined Rule 27 of Chapter XVI of the Original Side Rules, which places initial responsibility on the respondent to apply for drawing up the order within three days of the order date. The appellants acted within the prescribed timeline by submitting a requisition for drawing up the order within seven days. The court reviewed the long-standing practice of informing the Current Record Department about the filing of the decree/order to expedite the marking of folios. It was determined that while this practice existed, it did not have the force of law and could not be considered a rule of limitation. The court cited Supreme Court decisions, emphasizing that a rule of practice cannot be elevated to a rule of limitation. Consequently, the preliminary objection regarding the appeal being time-barred was overruled. 2. Jurisdiction to Make a "Best Judgment" Assessment: The respondent argued that the appellants had no jurisdiction to make a "best judgment" assessment as there was no provision for such an assessment in the Act or the Rules. The court noted that the learned Judge, who initially heard the writ petition, did not decide on this issue but directed a fresh hearing. Upon further hearing, the Commissioner of Excise (Special) upheld the previous order except for a specific period. The court did not delve deeper into this issue, as the demand was already found to be barred by limitation under Rule 11. 3. Applicability of Rule 11 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956: Rule 11 deals with the recovery of duties or charges short-levied or erroneously refunded and prescribes a six-month limitation period for making such demands. The court found that the demand for the payment of excise duty was made long after the six-month period had expired. The court rejected the contention that deliberate misstatements in A.R. 2 forms would tantamount to clandestine removal, which would fall under Rule 9(2). Instead, it held that even if there were misstatements, Rule 11 would apply, and the demand was time-barred. 4. Applicability of Rule 9(2) of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956: Rule 9(2) concerns the removal of dutiable goods without payment of duty and imposes penalties and confiscation. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation that Rule 9(2) applies only to clandestine removals without assessment. Since the goods in question were removed based on applications in A.R. 2 forms and duty was assessed and paid, Rule 9(2) was deemed inapplicable. 5. Applicability of Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956: Rule 12 is a residuary provision for the recovery of sums due to the government when no specific provision is made in the rules. The court concluded that since Rule 11 specifically applied to the case, there was no need to invoke Rule 12. The demand was already barred by Rule 11's six-month limitation period. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the demand for excise duty was barred by Rule 11 of the Rules. The preliminary objection regarding the appeal's maintainability was overruled, and the court did not find it necessary to address the issue of "best judgment" assessment further. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
