|
Advanced Search Options
Central Excise - Case Laws
Showing 81161 to 81180 of 81330 Records
-
1970 (7) TMI 27
Issues:
1. Whether excise duty can be levied on imported P.V.C. powder held by petitioners before the amendment to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
2. The validity of the notices demanding excise duty on the stock of P.V.C. powder held by the petitioners on the midnight of 28th February 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment addressed the issue of whether excise duty could be imposed on imported P.V.C. powder held by the petitioners before the legislative amendment. The petitioners imported P.V.C. powder for their manufacturing process. The Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 was amended in 1961 to include P.V.C. powder as an excisable good. However, the duty was applicable only to P.V.C. powder manufactured in India post the amendment. The petitioners possessed imported P.V.C. powder before the legislative change, and the amendment did not impose duty retroactively on existing imported stock. The court held that excise duty could not be levied on the imported P.V.C. powder held by the petitioners before the legislative amendment, as it was not produced or manufactured in India.
2. The judgment also delved into the validity of the excise duty notices issued to the petitioners. The Excise Inspector sent multiple notices demanding excise duty on the stock of P.V.C. powder held by the petitioners on the midnight of 28th February 1961. The demand was based on the amended legislation, which the court found inapplicable to imported P.V.C. powder held before the legislative change. The court noted that the demand for excise duty on the imported P.V.C. powder stock was unjustified. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the petitioners, quashing the notices and the order confirming the demands. The judgment concluded by granting a writ of mandamus to annul the notices and the Assistant Collector's order, with costs awarded to the petitioners.
-
1970 (7) TMI 26
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of whether the demand of differential duty falls under Rule 10 or Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
2. Classification of paper manufactured by the petitioner under Entry No. 17(3) or 17(4) of the Tariff Schedule.
Detailed Analysis:
Issue 1: Determination of Applicable Rule for Differential Duty Demand
The first issue was whether the demand for the differential amount of duty (Rs. 8,735.85) raised by the Central Excise Department against the petitioner falls under Rule 10 or Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Rule 10 pertains to the recovery of duties or charges short-levied or erroneously refunded due to inadvertence, error, collusion, or misstatement as to the quantity, description, or value of goods. Rule 10-A is a residuary rule applicable only when no specific provision for collection exists under other rules.
The court concluded that the demand falls under Rule 10, as the short-levy was due to a misstatement regarding the description of the goods. Since the papers were initially described as 'printing papers' but should have been described as 'packing and wrapping papers,' it constituted a misstatement. Consequently, Rule 10-A did not apply, and the three-month limitation period under Rule 10 was applicable. The demand for items dated before 2nd July 1962 was thus barred by limitation, rendering the demand illegal for those items.
Issue 2: Classification of Paper Under Tariff Schedule
The second issue was whether the paper manufactured by the petitioner should be classified under Entry No. 17(3) (Printing & Writing paper) or Entry No. 17(4) (Packing & Wrapping paper) of the Tariff Schedule. The petitioner contended that the paper was printing & writing paper, while the Excise Department classified it as packing & wrapping paper based on the Deputy Chief Chemist's report.
The court examined the evidence, including:
- Three reports from chemists detailing the mechanical strength, sizing material, and penetration test of the paper.
- Correspondence between the petitioner and its customers showing the paper's size and use.
- Samples of the paper.
- Distinguishing features of packing and wrapping papers, such as strength, imperviousness, actual use, and size.
The court found that neither the Assistant Collector nor the Collector in Appeal had applied their minds to this evidence. The Assistant Collector relied solely on the Chief Chemist's opinion, which was not definitive and merely suggested a possible use for packing and wrapping. The Collector's order was also non-specific and lacked a detailed analysis of the evidence.
The court applied recognized tests to the paper samples and referred to E.J. Labarres' "Dictionary and Encyclopaedia of paper and paper-making," which highlighted strength, use of sizing materials, and stiffness as key characteristics of wrapping papers. The court found that the petitioner's paper lacked these qualities and was supplied in a size unsuitable for packing or wrapping purposes.
Additionally, the court noted that the paper was known in the market as writing paper and used as such, aligning with the Supreme Court's criterion that an article's classification should be based on how it is known and used in the market.
Conclusion
The court concluded that the paper manufactured by the petitioner did not fall under Entry No. 17(4) and should be classified under Entry No. 17(3). The demand by the Excise Department was declared illegal, and the petitioner was entitled to a refund of Rs. 8,735.85. The rule was made absolute with costs.
-
1970 (7) TMI 25
The petitioner challenged an assessment order, seeking to quash the demand and appellate orders and refund Rs. 73,846.62. The court found that natural justice principles were not followed, setting aside the orders and allowing a re-proceeding within one year. The petitioner can reply to the show cause notice within two months. The court did not express opinions on the points raised. No costs were awarded.
-
1970 (6) TMI 13
Issues:
1. Contravention of Rule 32 - Failure to produce valid transport document.
2. Substitution of tobacco and discrepancy in weight.
3. Adequacy of explanation provided by the appellant.
4. Consideration of appellant's explanation by authorities.
5. Reduction of fine and penalty by appellate and revising authorities.
6. Sufficiency of reasoning in revising authority's order.
Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this case revolves around the contravention of Rule 32 under the Central Excise Act, where the appellant failed to produce a valid transport document for the tobacco in question. The Assistant Collector found the tobacco packages transported without a permit, leading to the confiscation order.
2. Another crucial aspect is the suspicion of substitution of tobacco and discrepancies in weight. The authorities discovered that the seized tobacco differed in form and variety from that mentioned in the sale note. The weight discrepancy further raised concerns, indicating a potential violation.
3. The appellant provided an explanation for the delay in producing the sale note, attributing it to the Excise Authorities taking it initially. However, the authorities found the explanation insufficient as the produced sale note did not match the seized tobacco's description, leading to doubts about the authenticity of the transaction.
4. The appellant argued that the authorities did not adequately consider his explanation, emphasizing that the difference in weight was due to water sprinkling during transit. Despite this, both the Assistant Collector and the Collector concurred on the discrepancy, indicating a thorough examination of the evidence.
5. The appellate and revising authorities reduced the fine and penalty imposed on the appellant after reviewing the case. While the revising authority's order lacked detailed reasoning, the court upheld the decision, noting that the modifications were within their discretion based on the circumstances.
6. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the revising authority's concurrence with the findings of the lower authorities did not necessitate a detailed judgment. As both authorities were aligned on the crucial issue of tobacco substitution, the court found no grounds to interfere with the decision, highlighting the deference to fact-finding authorities' conclusions.
-
1970 (4) TMI 163
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of factories for excise duty based on output.
2. Application of higher excise duty rates to factories with no production in a specific financial year.
3. Discrimination in excise duty rates based on the date of licence application.
4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality).
5. Violation of Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution (Right to Property and Freedom to Practice any Profession).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Factories for Excise Duty Based on Output:
The petitioner applied for a licence to manufacture safety matches and commenced production in October 1966. The excise duty on matches is governed by item 38 of Schedule 1 to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and the rates are specified in Notification No. 75 dated 30-4-1966. The notification classifies factories into categories A, B, C, and D based on their output during the financial year 1964-65, with different excise duty rates for each category. The petitioner's factory, with an output not exceeding 75 million matches, falls under Category D, which has the lowest duty rate of Rs. 3.75 per gross.
2. Application of Higher Excise Duty Rates to Factories with No Production in a Specific Financial Year:
Clause 7 of the notification stipulates that factories with no clearance during the financial year for which they had a licence must pay a higher duty rate applicable to Category B factories (Rs. 4.40 per gross). The petitioner's factory, which did not commence production until October 1966, was subjected to this higher rate despite falling under Category D based on its output. This clause was challenged as it imposed a higher duty rate on factories that did not produce any matches during the financial year 1964-65, which the court found to be discriminatory and unreasonable.
3. Discrimination in Excise Duty Rates Based on the Date of Licence Application:
Clauses 4 and 6 of the notification require factories that applied for a licence on or after 1-4-1964 to pay higher duty rates in their first financial year of production and in subsequent years. Factories in Category D, for instance, must pay Rs. 4.10 per gross if they applied for a licence on or after 1-4-1964, compared to Rs. 3.75 per gross for those that applied earlier. The court found this differentiation based solely on the date of licence application to be arbitrary and lacking a reasonable basis.
4. Violation of Article 14 of the Constitution (Right to Equality):
The court held that the discrimination created by clauses 4, 6, and 7 of the notification violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Factories similarly placed in terms of output were subjected to different duty rates based on arbitrary criteria such as the date of licence application and whether they had production in a specific financial year. This lack of reasonable nexus to the object of the Act rendered these clauses void.
5. Violation of Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution (Right to Property and Freedom to Practice any Profession):
The petitioner argued that the impugned clauses infringed upon their fundamental rights under Articles 19(1)(f) and (g) of the Constitution. Although the court primarily focused on the violation of Article 14, the arbitrary and unreasonable imposition of higher duties could also be seen as an infringement on the right to property and the freedom to practice any profession.
Conclusion:
The court found that the imposition of higher excise duty rates on factories with no production in 1964-65 and the discrimination based on the date of licence application were arbitrary and violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Consequently, clauses 4, 6, and 7 of the notification were struck down as void. The petitioner was entitled to a refund of the duty collected under these void provisions. The writ petition was allowed with costs, and the respondents were directed to refund the excise duty collected from the petitioner.
-
1970 (4) TMI 152
Issues Involved:
1. Basis of assessment for Ciba Atul Dyes.
2. Jurisdiction of excise authorities to include repacking charges in assessable value.
3. Validity of demand notices beyond the three-month limitation period.
4. Violation of natural justice principles by the Collector's order dated April 3, 1964.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Basis of Assessment for Ciba Atul Dyes:
The petitioner contended that the assessment should be based on the price charged by the company to Ciba, not on the prices at which Ciba sold the dyes. The court referred to its decision in Special Civil Application No. 1279 of 1966, concluding that since Ciba was the sole distributor and there was no wholesale market at the time of removal, the assessment should be based on Ciba's wholesale prices. Thus, the first contention was dismissed.
2. Jurisdiction of Excise Authorities to Include Repacking Charges:
The court examined whether repacking charges by Ciba should be included in the assessable value. For Atul Dyes, sold in bulk to various wholesalers, the assessable value should be based on the company's price list at the factory site, excluding repacking charges by Ciba. For Ciba Atul Dyes, since Ciba was the sole purchaser, the second part of Section 4(a) applied, considering the nearest market prices. The court found no justification to include repacking charges in either case, as the excisable article's value should be determined at the time of removal from the factory, not after subsequent repacking by Ciba. The court held that including repacking charges was ultra vires and outside the scope of Section 4(a).
3. Validity of Demand Notices Beyond the Three-Month Limitation Period:
The petitioner argued that demand notices were incompetent as they were issued beyond the three-month limitation period under Rule 10. The court did not delve into this issue in detail, as the second contention regarding repacking charges already succeeded, rendering this point moot.
4. Violation of Natural Justice Principles:
The petitioner claimed that the Collector's order dated April 3, 1964, violated natural justice principles as no personal hearing was given, and the authority sought directions from higher authorities. The court noted that the earlier orders sought to change the assessment basis by including packing charges, and the final orders were merely consequential. The court emphasized that the existence of an alternative remedy does not preclude the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, especially when the assessment basis is ultra vires. Thus, the preliminary objection raised by Mr. Vakil was dismissed.
Conclusion:
The court allowed the petition, quashing the impugned orders, demand notices, show cause notices, and final orders of July 1964, insofar as they sought to reopen the assessment by including Ciba's packing charges. The rule was made absolute with costs.
-
1970 (4) TMI 62
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the goods manufactured by the petitioner are excisable.
2. Whether the petitioner is required to take out a licence under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, even if the excise duty payable on the manufactured product is subject to executive exemption.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Whether the goods manufactured by the petitioner are excisable:
The petitioner manufactures tabular steel frames and chair angles for the Integral Coach Factory and Standard Motor Products of India Limited. The respondents argued that these products fall under Item 40 of the Central Excise Tariff, which covers "Steel furniture made partly or wholly of steel, in or in relation to the manufacture of which any process is ordinarily carried on with the aid of power, whether in assembled or unassembled condition." The petitioner contended that its products are not steel furniture and thus not excisable under Item 40. The court noted that the manufactured goods are not commercial products as they are fabricated to specific requirements and are not sold in the wholesale or retail market. The court emphasized that for goods to be excisable, they must be known to the market as commercial goods. The frames and angles manufactured by the petitioner are merely the base for the final product and do not constitute steel furniture in their existing condition. The court concluded that the goods in question do not fall under Item 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether the petitioner is required to take out a licence under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, even if the excise duty payable on the manufactured product is subject to executive exemption:
The respondents argued that the petitioner is required to take out a licence under Section 6 read with Section 3 of the Act, notwithstanding the executive exemption from excise duty. Section 3(1) is the charging section, which mandates the levy and collection of excise duties on all excisable goods produced or manufactured in India. Section 6 stipulates that certain operations related to the manufacture of excisable goods require a licence, provided there is a notification in the Official Gazette specifying such operations. The court observed that although the goods manufactured by the petitioner are component parts of steel furniture, there was no notification by the Central Government mandating a licence for the manufacture of such components. The court held that in the absence of such a notification, the respondents lacked the authority to compel the petitioner to take out a licence. Therefore, the petitioner was not obligated to take out a licence under the provisions of the Act.
Conclusion:
The court ruled in favor of the petitioner on both issues. The goods manufactured by the petitioner are not excisable under Item 40 of the First Schedule to the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. Additionally, the petitioner is not required to take out a licence for the manufacture of the goods in question due to the absence of a specific notification mandating such a licence. The writ petition was allowed with costs.
-
1970 (3) TMI 59
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused evaded payment of Central Excise duty under Section 9(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
2. Whether the demand for payment of duty by the Central Excise Department was arbitrary and improper.
3. Whether the accused substituted the original tobacco with inferior quality tobacco to avoid payment of duty.
4. Whether the accused set fire to the godown to cover up the removal of tobacco.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Evasion of Payment of Central Excise Duty:
The primary issue was whether the accused evaded payment of Central Excise duty under Section 9(b) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The court examined the meaning of "evade" and concluded that it implies some step for escaping or avoiding the payment of duty by underhand dealings. The court stated that a person is said to evade payment of duty if he does something underhand with the object of escaping or avoiding the payment of duty in the manner and at the time and place provided by the rules framed under the Act. The court further clarified that the offence of evasion is complete the moment the goods are removed from the warehouse without payment of duty, regardless of whether a demand for payment is raised under Rule 160.
2. Demand for Payment of Duty:
The court addressed whether the demand for payment of duty by the Central Excise Department was arbitrary and improper. The Sessions Judge had found that the demand for 702 Md. 11 Srs. of tobacco was incorrect and improper, and thus the accused was not bound to pay an arbitrary amount. The court, however, clarified that the obligation to pay duty arises as soon as the goods are produced, cured, or manufactured, and in cases where they are moved to a warehouse, payment of duty is deferred until they are removed from the warehouse. The court held that the defect or impropriety in the notice of demand under Rule 160 cannot affect the offence which has already been committed.
3. Substitution of Original Tobacco:
The court examined whether the accused substituted the original tobacco with inferior quality tobacco to avoid payment of duty. The prosecution argued that the accused had removed 197 Md. 26 Sr. 13 Ch. of tobacco and replaced it with 147 Md. 11 Sr. 8 Ch. of inferior quality tobacco. The Sessions Judge found that the Panchanama prepared by the Central Excise authorities was not reliable and that the prosecution failed to establish the quality and quantity of tobacco found in the godown. The court agreed with the Sessions Judge, noting procedural irregularities and the lack of reliable evidence to prove that the accused removed any tobacco surreptitiously from the godown without payment of duty.
4. Setting Fire to the Godown:
The court considered whether the accused set fire to the godown to cover up the removal of tobacco. The prosecution alleged that the accused set fire to the godown when it became apparent that the authorities would check it by force. The court noted that while the circumstances created a suspicion that the fire was set to cover up the illegal removal of tobacco, suspicion alone cannot take the place of proof. The court found no evidence to show how the fire originated and that the prosecution failed to prove that the remains of tobacco in the godown did not correspond to the tobacco stored there.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused took any steps to evade payment of excise duty. The appeal was dismissed, and the order of acquittal was upheld. The court emphasized that the offence of evasion of duty is complete when the goods are removed from the warehouse without payment of duty, and any defect in the subsequent notice of demand cannot affect the offence already committed.
-
1970 (3) TMI 56
Whether the inspection had been done by the Deputy Superintendent during their absence and a notice under Rule 160 had been issued without any legal authority?
Held that:- As already mentioned, it is not as if the Collector merely confirmed the demand under Exhibit A in toto. On the other hand he modified it in favour of the appellant to some extent. It is such an exhaustive order passed by the Collector—Exhibit Q—that was the subject of consideration in the first instance, by the Central Board of Revenue, in Exhibit T, and later, by the Central Government, in Exhibit V. Under these circumstances, we are not inclined to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the orders—Exhibits T and V—require to be interfered with.
The appellant had made no grievance before the Collector of Central Excise that they should be allowed to examine witnesses nor did they urge that a copy of the report of the Deputy Superintendent had not been made available to them. They did not make any request for cross-examining the Deputy Superintendent of Central Excise. In view of all these circumstances, in our opinion the High Court was justified in holding that the appellants had a proper opportunity of contesting the demand made by the department and the there had been no failure of natural justice in the proceedings conducted by the respondents.
What the Collector has done in this case is to give the appellants an opportunity of satisfying, if they can, the authority concerned, that there was no justification for the issue of the two notices, Exhibits K and L under R. 223-A. The order does nothing more than this. If the appellants are able to satisfy the authority properly, the result may even be that no action will be taken under Rule 223-A. No scope for any conflict between the orders of the Collector, Exhibit Q dated March 3, 1958 and Exhibit N, dated February 6, 1958 because the two orders relate to different types of proceedings initiated against the appellants. Appeal dismissed.
-
1970 (3) TMI 55
Whether an assessment made by a subordinate officer in accordance with the instructions issued by the Collector to whom an appeal lay against the order of that subordinate officer can be called a valid assessment in the eye of law?
Held that:- In the present case, when the assessment is to be made by the Deputy Superintendent or the Assistant Collector, the Collector, to whom an appeal lies against his order of assessment, cannot control or fetter his judgment in the matter of assessment. If the Collector issues directions by which the Deputy Superintendent of the Assistant Collector is bound no room is left for the exercise of his own independent judgment.
These appeals must succeed on the ground that the impugned orders were vitiated for the reasons given and deserve to be set aside. The assessing authorities, namely, the Deputy Superintendent or the Assistant Collector shall make fresh assessment of duty in accordance with law and thereafter the question of refund will be decided by the appropriate authorities
-
1970 (1) TMI 27
The judgment addressed whether 'rubber component' in a notification meant the same as 'rubber compound'. The petitioner was granted exemption based on 'rubber component' but asked to pay later. The court found the demand to be incorrect and set aside the orders, allowing the original petition.
-
1969 (12) TMI 43
Issues:
1. Interpretation of Rule 175 (3) of the Central Excise Rules regarding obtaining separate licenses for distinct factories under the same company.
2. Application of the proviso to Rule 175 (3) in cases of unmanufactured products.
3. Determination of whether separate licenses are required for factories situated in the same town but with distinct operations.
Analysis:
The judgment deals with the interpretation of Rule 175 (3) of the Central Excise Rules concerning the issuance of separate licenses for distinct factories owned by the same company. The case involved a company that operated two separate factories in the same town but with distinct operations. The company had historically obtained separate licenses for each factory. However, in 1967-68, the Assistant Collector expressed the intention to grant only one license for both factories, prompting the company to seek legal recourse. The company argued that the factories were distinct and separate entities, justifying the need for separate licenses. The court noted that while the factories belonged to the same company, they were not at the same business location, and each factory had its own operations. The court upheld the company's claim, emphasizing that Rule 175 (3) allows for the issuance of separate licenses when a person or company has more than one place of business. The court rejected the argument that the factories should be treated as one due to their proximity or common features, emphasizing the right of a person to apply for separate licenses for each place of business.
The judgment also addressed the application of the proviso to Rule 175 (3) concerning cases of unmanufactured products. The court clarified that the proviso specifically pertained to unmanufactured products alone and did not restrict the right to obtain separate licenses for manufactured products. The court highlighted that Rule 175 (3) grants individuals the right to apply for separate licenses for each place of business, without limitations based on the type of products manufactured or the proximity of the business locations. Therefore, the court dismissed the argument that the proviso restricted the company's ability to obtain separate licenses for its distinct factories.
In conclusion, the court affirmed the company's right to obtain separate licenses for its two distinct factories, emphasizing the provisions of Rule 175 (3) that allow for such licensing arrangements. The judgment clarified that the location or proximity of factories in the same town does not negate the company's entitlement to separate licenses for each place of business. As a result, the court dismissed the appeal brought by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, upholding the decision to grant separate licenses to the company for its two factories.
-
1969 (10) TMI 69
Whether the coils of cotton yarn cleared out of the appellant's factory during the period from 17-8- 1962 to 14-11-1962 are exempt from excise duty in view of Exts. P. 2 and P. 3 which exempt from payment of excise duty cotton yarn of 17 counts or more but less than 35 counts, if cleared out of factory in 'hanks'?
Held that:- The department did not support the impugned demand on the basis of the retros- pective effect purported to have been given to the explanation referred to earlier by the notification dated February 16, 1963 (Exh. P-12) for obvious reasons. The rule making authority had not been vested with the power under the Central Excise and Salt Act to make rules with retrospective effect. Therefore the retrospective effect purported to be given under Exh. P-12 was beyond the powers of the rule making authority. Appeal allowed
-
1969 (10) TMI 23
Issues:
- Whether the appellant Company produced nitro-cellulose lacquer without the required central excise license and removed it for internal use without paying duty.
- Whether the appellant Company's product falls under tariff Item No. 22 (iii) (i), No. 14 (iii) (i) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
- Whether the imposition of penalty by the Assistant Collector of Customs was justified.
- Whether the Central Government's rejection of the revision application without giving reasons is valid.
Analysis:
1. The appellant Company was accused of producing nitro-cellulose lacquer without a central excise license and removing it for internal use without paying duty. The company denied that the chemical compound used was nitro-cellulose lacquer as defined by the law.
2. The Deputy Superintendent determined a substantial amount as excise duty owed by the appellant Company for the period in question. A demand notice was issued, but the duty remained unpaid by the appellant.
3. The Assistant Collector imposed a penalty on the appellant for not obtaining a license for producing nitro-cellulose lacquer. The appellant contested that their product did not fall under the definition of nitro-cellulose lacquer, but the Assistant Collector upheld the penalty.
4. In the appeal to the Collector, the appellant raised various contentions, including the nature of the product and the duty implications. The Collector reviewed conflicting opinions and gave two personal hearings to the appellant.
5. The Central Government rejected the revision application without providing reasons for the decision. The Court emphasized the importance of giving reasons in such cases to ensure a fair and transparent process.
6. The Court referred to previous judgments highlighting the necessity of disclosing reasons when dismissing a revision application. Failure to provide reasons was deemed to render the order void in previous cases.
7. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Central Government's order, and remanded the case for proper disposal. It suggested that an oral hearing be granted to the appellant given the complexity of the technical issues involved. The Union of India was directed to pay the costs of the appeal to the appellant Company.
-
1969 (9) TMI 109
Whether the phrase "person to whom a shop has been sold" in cl. 21 of r. 5.34 means a "person whose bid has been provisionally accepted"?
Held that:- In the present case the first part of cl. 21 applies. It is not disputed that the Chief Commissioner has disapproved the bid offered by the respondent. If the Chief Commissioner had granted sanction under cl. 33 of Ex. D-23 the auction sale in favour of the respondent would have been a completed transaction and he would have been liable for any shortfall on the resale. As the essential pre-requisites of a completed sale are missing in this case there is no liability imposed on the respondent for payment of the deficiency in the price. For these reasons we hold that the judgment of the Punjab High Court dated August 19, 1963 in L.P.A. No. 50-D of 1960 is correct and this appeal must be dismissed.
-
1969 (9) TMI 40
Issues Involved: Legality of demand notices issued under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; Applicability of Rule 10 versus Rule 10A; Limitation period for issuing demand notices.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Legality of Demand Notices under Rule 10A:
The Petitioner Company, a manufacturer of dye-stuffs, challenged the legality of demand notices dated December 24, 1965, and January 24, 1966, issued under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. These notices demanded payment of Rs. 41,152.25 and Rs. 83,238.14, respectively. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Poona, had previously upheld these demands on March 26, 1966, rejecting the company's contentions.
2. Applicability of Rule 10 versus Rule 10A:
The Court referenced a prior Division Bench judgment from July 1/2, 1965, in Appeal No. 69 of 1963, which clarified the interpretation of Rules 10 and 10A. Rule 10 deals with the recovery of duties short-levied due to inadvertence, error, collusion, or misstatement, and mandates that such demands must be issued within three months. Rule 10A provides residuary powers for recovery where no specific provision exists. The Court held that Rule 10 applies to both short-levy and non-levy situations, rejecting the Department's argument that Rule 10A should apply when no initial levy occurred.
3. Limitation Period for Issuing Demand Notices:
The Court noted that the processed dyes were cleared between April 22, 1963, and December 16, 1964, for the first notice, and between March 29, 1962, and January 29, 1965, for the second notice. The Petitioner argued that the three-month limitation period under Rule 10 had expired well before the notices were issued. The Court agreed, stating that the first notice issued on December 24, 1965, was nearly two years late, and the second notice issued on January 24, 1966, was also significantly delayed.
4. Findings on the Assistant Collector's Decision:
The Assistant Collector had justified the use of Rule 10A, arguing that the processed dyes were never initially subject to excise duty. The Court criticized this reasoning, emphasizing that the Assistant Collector was bound by the Division Bench's interpretation of Rules 10 and 10A. The Court considered issuing a contempt notice but refrained, instead warning officers to adhere to judicial decisions.
5. Respondents' Contentions:
The Respondents argued that the Division Bench had not addressed situations where excise duty was evaded due to a mistake of law, suggesting Rule 10A should apply. The Court dismissed this argument, reiterating that any short-levy or non-levy must be addressed under Rule 10, as established by the Division Bench.
6. Illegality of the Notices and Order:
The Court found it extraordinary that the Department sought to issue demand notices without refunding the duty already paid on the basic dyes. The processed dyes were manufactured from dyes on which excise duty had been paid, making them eligible for exemption under the November 23, 1961, notification. Thus, the demand notices were illegal and unwarranted, issued beyond the prescribed time limit, and contrary to the Division Bench's decision.
Conclusion:
The Court set aside and struck off the impugned notices and the Assistant Collector's order dated March 26, 1966. The Petitioner's contentions were upheld, and the Rule was made absolute with costs.
-
1969 (9) TMI 39
Issues:
1. Validity of the requirement for obtaining a license under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944.
2. Applicability of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules to the petitioners.
3. Interpretation of the notification exempting footwear below a certain value from licensing requirements.
4. Distinction between excise duty payment and the requirement for a license under the Act.
5. Availability of statutory remedies under the Act for challenging licensing decisions.
Analysis:
The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus challenging the requirement to obtain a license under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944. The petitioners argued that they were not manufacturing excisable goods as defined under the Act and were exempt based on a notification exempting footwear below a certain value. The Central Government contended that Rule 174(2)(a) applied to the petitioners and that the notification did not exempt them from obtaining a license.
The Act defines excisable goods and prescribes duties on such goods. Section 6 mandates obtaining a license for engaging in the production or manufacture of specified goods. Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules requires manufacturers to hold a license. The petitioners, as footwear manufacturers, were deemed to be manufacturing excisable goods, and Rule 174(2)(a) was applicable to them.
The notification exempting footwear below a certain value did not absolve the petitioners from the licensing requirement. Even though the petitioners may not be liable for excise duty, they were still obligated to obtain a license under Rule 174. The Court found no illegality in the notice requiring the petitioners to obtain a license.
Additionally, the Court highlighted that the petitioners had previously filed similar applications, indicating a recurring issue. The Court emphasized the availability of statutory remedies under the Act for challenging licensing decisions, including appeals and revisions. The Court dismissed the writ petition, stating that there was no merit in the petition and that statutory remedies should be pursued instead.
In conclusion, the Court upheld the requirement for the petitioners to obtain a license under the Act, emphasizing the distinction between excise duty payment and licensing obligations. The petition was dismissed, and the Court highlighted the availability of statutory remedies for challenging licensing decisions.
-
1969 (9) TMI 38
Issues:
1. Refund of excess excise duty collected by the respondents.
2. Validity of Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
3. Jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for refund.
Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner claimed that the respondents collected excise duty at a rate of 7 1/2% instead of the correct rate of 2 1/2%, resulting in an excess collection of Rs. 9,322.72. The respondents did not dispute this fact. The High Court held that the excess collection was not in accordance with the law, and thus, the respondents were liable to refund the amount.
Issue 2: The petitioner argued that Rule 11, which requires a refund application to be filed within three months, is ultra vires of Section 37(2)(1) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944. However, the High Court did not delve into the vires of the rule since the claim was made within three years, and any tax collected under a mistake of law can be recovered within three years. The Court cited previous judgments to support the petitioner's right to claim a refund despite the limitation period for filing such suits.
Issue 3: The High Court, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai, held that in cases where tax is paid under a mistake of law and later found to be invalid, the government must repay the amount. The Court asserted its jurisdiction under Article 226 to order the refund of money collected without legal authority. Following this principle, the High Court directed the respondents to refund the excess excise duty collected. The Court also left the determination of the exact amount to the authorities concerned.
In conclusion, the High Court allowed the writ petition, issued a writ of mandamus for the refund of excess excise duty, and directed the respondents to pay the petitioner's costs.
-
1969 (8) TMI 33
Validity and legality of the levy of cess by way of excise duty on the rubber used by manufacturers of chappals under the provisions of the Rubber Act, 1947, (Act XXIV of 1947) challenged
Held that:- We find it difficult to endorse the reading of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2) of Section 12 in isolation. Not only the statute but also the section have to be read as a whole and together, and in our judgment whatever be the nature of duty, Parliament would undoubtedly have legislative competence under Entry 97 of List I in the Seventh Schedule read with Article 248 of the Constitution.
The substantive provisions of sub-sections (4), (5) and (6) of Section 12 also contemplate assessment being made with regard to the returns to be furnished by owners and manufacturers. Any person aggrieved by an assessment has been given the right of appeal to the District Judge. But as pointed out before, there is no provision either in the statute or in the rules for a demand to be made and a coercive process to be employed in the event of failure to make the payment. That is done by Rule 33D alone from which it would be reasonable to conclude that under the rules it is only the manufacturers who are liable to pay the amount of duty. The rules can, therefore, be said to make a definite provision with regard to the category of persons from whom the collection of the duty is to be made, namely, the manufacturers. Appeal dismissed.
-
1969 (7) TMI 110
Issues Involved:
1. Repeal of Cochin Tobacco Act by Finance Act, 1960.
2. Validity of Kerala Act 9 of 1964 under Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution.
3. Classification of the levy as a luxury tax or a duty of excise.
4. Competence of the State Legislature to enact the impugned Act.
5. Refund of the licence fee collected under the repealed Act.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Repeal of Cochin Tobacco Act by Finance Act, 1960:
The respondents, dealers in tobacco, contended that the Cochin Tobacco Act stood repealed by the Finance Act, 1960 due to the extension of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 to Travancore-Cochin. Consequently, the rules framed under the Cochin and Travancore Acts for issuing licenses and collecting fees were invalid ab initio. The Supreme Court previously held that the rules requiring licenses for storage and sale of tobacco were superseded on April 1, 1960, by virtue of Section 13(2) of the Finance Act, 1960, rendering the new rules framed in August 1950 and January 1951 invalid.
2. Validity of Kerala Act 9 of 1964 under Articles 301 and 304 of the Constitution:
The Kerala High Court held that the Kerala Act 9 of 1964 was ultra vires the Constitution, as it violated the guarantee contained in Articles 301 and 304. The High Court followed the decision in Kalyani Stores v. The State of Orissa, concluding that in the absence of tobacco production within Kerala, the state could not impose a tax on imported tobacco, thus violating Article 301. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the High Court misinterpreted the Kalyani Stores case. The imposition of a tax does not per se infringe Article 301 unless it directly and immediately restricts the free flow of trade. The High Court needed to determine whether the provisions of Act 9 of 1964 and the notification dated January 25, 1951, constituted such restrictions.
3. Classification of the levy as a luxury tax or a duty of excise:
The respondents argued that the license fee was essentially a duty of excise, which falls under the Union List, and thus beyond the competence of the State Legislature. The High Court dismissed the writ petition initially, holding that the tax levied was a luxury tax under entry 62 of the State List, not a duty of excise. The Supreme Court allowed the parties to argue this matter upon re-hearing in the High Court.
4. Competence of the State Legislature to enact the impugned Act:
The respondents claimed that the State Legislature lacked the power to levy and collect the license fee under the impugned Act, as it was essentially a duty of excise. The appellant contended that the legislation fell under Entry 62 of List II, making it within the competence of the State Legislature. The Supreme Court remitted this issue for further arguments and determination by the High Court.
5. Refund of the license fee collected under the repealed Act:
Following the Supreme Court's earlier decision, the respondents sought a refund of Rs. 1,11,750 collected as a license fee. The appellant refunded Rs. 73,500 but retained the balance. After the enactment of Act 9 of 1964, the appellant demanded the refund amount back, leading to the respondents filing a writ petition, which the High Court allowed, declaring the Act and rules ultra vires. The Supreme Court directed the High Court to re-examine the issue in light of the law laid down in this judgment.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Kerala High Court's judgment and remitting the case for re-hearing. The High Court was instructed to give parties an opportunity to file further affidavits and determine whether the provisions of Act 9 of 1964 and the notification dated January 25, 1951, directly and immediately restricted the free flow of trade, commerce, and intercourse under Article 301. The issue of whether the levy constituted a luxury tax or a duty of excise and the competence of the State Legislature to enact the impugned Act were also to be reconsidered.
............
|
9911796707
