9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of notifications granting exemption from excise duty. Analysis: The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing bars and rods, filed a classification list but received a show cause notice for non-levy of duty. The petitioner challenged the imposition of excise duty under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main issue was the correct interpretation of notifications granting exemption from excise duty. The petitioner sought exemption under Notification No. 206 of 1963, later amended by Notification No. 123 of 1965. The dispute centered around whether the raw material used by the petitioner, ingots, qualified for exemption under the notifications. The notifications exempted iron and steel products falling under specific categories if made from certain materials. The critical question was whether the ingots used by the petitioner fell under the exemption criteria. The Assistant Collector argued that ingots must be cut or broken into shapes resembling the final products to qualify for exemption. The petitioner contended that since the ingots naturally had the required shape, cutting or breaking them was unnecessary. The court agreed with the Assistant Collector's interpretation, stating that the benefit of the exemption could only be claimed if both conditions of the notification were met. Regarding the petitioner's argument that they should have been given a hearing before the amendment to the notification in 1965, the court held that since the amendment aimed to provide additional benefits to manufacturers, no prior hearing was necessary. The court emphasized that the amendment did not take away any existing rights but rather granted extra benefits. Therefore, the principles of natural justice did not require a hearing in this case. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the imposition of excise duty on the petitioner. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and no other contentions were raised during the proceedings.
|
