9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to order dated 25-3-1992 in W.P. No. 2107 of 1989 regarding excise duty assessment on brake linings and clutch facings. Dispute over passing on discount to wholesale dealers. Appeal against order of first respondent directing payment of duty collected as deposit. Counter-affidavit filed justifying impugned order. Appeal against Single Judge's decision quashing the order. Analysis: The petitioner, a public limited company manufacturing Brake Linings and Clutch Facings, challenged the excise duty assessment under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The dispute arose when the Excise Authorities required duty payment based on the price at which distributors sold the products, not the ex-factory price declared by the petitioner. Despite objections and explanations, the first respondent directed duty calculation based on the price to wholesale dealers, leading to differential duty payment. The petitioner filed a writ petition against this order, seeking relief directly from the High Court. The petitioner collected deposits from dealers to cover the disputed duty amount, ensuring protection of interests pending the writ petition's outcome. The dispute extended to a second factory in a different jurisdiction, where a similar issue arose regarding passing on discounts. The second respondent issued a show cause notice demanding payment of collected deposits as duty to the Government. The petitioner challenged this order directly in the High Court, bypassing the appeal provision due to jurisdictional and procedural concerns. The Single Judge, considering the previous judgment in a related case involving the petitioner's Madras unit, quashed the impugned order in favor of the petitioner. The respondents, dissatisfied with this decision, appealed the Single Judge's order. The arguments revolved around the non-intimation of discount value and duty collection details to the Assistant Collector, impacting the assessment process. The learned Counsel for both parties presented their case, with the respondents justifying the impugned order and the petitioner seeking relief based on previous judgments and procedural fairness. The High Court, after reviewing the facts and previous judgments, upheld the Single Judge's decision, emphasizing the identical nature of the issues between the Madras unit and the unit near Madurai. The Court found no valid grounds to interfere with the Single Judge's order, dismissing the appeal as devoid of merit. The judgment reaffirmed the importance of consistency in decision-making and procedural fairness in excise duty assessments, ultimately ruling in favor of the petitioner based on established legal principles.
|
