9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (7) TMI 97X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cotton fabrics - medium - A grey (unprocessed), cotton fabrics - medium - B grey (unprocessed) and Bleached or/and dyed but not printed were exempted from payment of excise duty levied under the Act. Under the Khadi and other Handloom Industries Development (Additional Excise Duty on Cloth) Act (No.12 of 1953) (hereinafter referred to Act 12 of 1953) additional excise duty was leviable on cloth. Under a Notification issued by the Government of India, dated 25-7-1953 all varieties of cloth which were for the time being exempted from the payment of excise duty levied under the Act were exempted from the additional excise duty leviable under Act No.12, 1953. By a Notification, dated 1-10-1966, the Notification, dated 25-7-1953 was amended by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion : For the purposes of these rules Composite Mill means manufacturer who is engaged in spinning of cotton twist, yarn or thread or weaving or processing of cotton fabrics with the aid of power and has a proprietary interest in at least two of such manufacturing activities." It is, therefore, clear from the Notification, dated 25-7-1953 as amended by the Notification, dated 7-7-1970 that the exemption given was not applicable to cloth of the description of Medium-A (unprocessed) and Medium-B and Coarse, if unprocessed, or if bleached or dyed, or if bleached and dyed but not printed which answered the description of dhoti, saree, etc. as defined by the Textile Commissioner under the Cotton Textile (Control) Order, 1948. 2. It is not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 1953 in respect of certain goods which answered the description of goods referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) of the proviso to Notification, dated 25-7-1953 as amended by the Notification, dated 7-7-1970 and called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the additional duty payable under Act 12 of 1953 should not be recovered from it. The petitioner represented that it had not paid the excise duty in view of the letter, dated 26-9-1970 received from the Superintendent of Central Excise and that the revenue was debarred from claiming the said amount by virtue of the principle of equitable estoppel. It was contended by the petitioner, that but for the representation made by the Superintendent, the petitioner would have passed on the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been a short levy of the duty. The principle of estoppel which is a rule in equity cannot prevail against law. The proper officer who is empowered to recover the duty due and payable by an assessee by virtue of a statutory rule cannot be prevented from exercising the said power by applying the principle of equitable estoppel. It is not disputed that if duty had been assessed under Act 12 of 1953 read with Notification, dated 25-7-1953 as amended by Notification, dated 7-7-1970, the petitioner would be liable to pay the sum demanded by the Assistant Collector. Since the only ground urged, namely, the ground of equitable estoppel is not available to the petitioner in the instant case, the petition has to fail. 5. In the result, the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
