Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1988 (7) TMI 177

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oods in terms of Notification No. 52/82, dated 28-2-1982 was fixed at 8% ad valorem. These were however later again exempted from payment of duty. 2. The issue involved is the levy of duty on the goods at the rate of 8% between 1 -3-1982 when Notification No. 52/82 become effective till the goods were again exempted from payment of duty. The lower authorities have held that the duty at the rate of 8% was chargeable during this period. The learned Consultant for the appellants, pleaded that after the introduction of the Finance Bill, 1982, the Item 15A was re-structured and only specified items were leviable to duty under Tariff Item 15A(2). He pleaded that the appellants goods in terms of the restructured item fell outside the preview of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the bill represents the correct position in law and as such the same cannot be faulted. However, before parting with this appeal I have to observe that a slight confusion has been created by the finding recorded by the Assistant Collector that duty paid by the party after the introduction of Notification No. 52/82 is correctly charged as it is covered by the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 and the reference to the same in the circumstances was not relevant. However, it does not detract from the fact that the decision arrived at by the Assistant Collector that the goods were liable to duty under 52/82, was correct. The same does not therefore, call for any interference from this end." 3. We observe that there is no dispute tha .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 68, in terms of Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 as held by the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Pune v. M/s. Peico Electronics and Electricals Ltd. -1987 (30) E.L.T. 608 (Tribunal) 1986 (6) ECR 416 (CEGAT), only if there is any increase in the rate of duty or a new levy the relevant budgetary provisions immediately take effect with the introduction of the Finance Bill The findings of the Tribunal in this regard are reproduced below - We have carefully considered the matter Section 3 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 reads as follows - Where a Bill to be introduced in Parliament on behalf of Government provides for imposition or increase of duty of customs or excise, the Central Government m .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Act and the declaration apply only in cases where the Bill imposes on increases excise duty on any goods. We therefore, hold that non-specified articles of plastics continued to remain under Item 15A(2) till the enactment of the Finance Bill, 1982 whereupon they became classifiable under Item 68 CET. The demand of duty from the appellant under Item 15A(2) in respect of non-specified articles cleared by them during the period 28-2-1982 to 19-4-1982 was therefore perfectly valid." We observe that in the present case, Item 15A(2) was restructured and this restructured item could only take effect with the passing of the Finance Bill i.e. when it became as an Act and till then, for the purpose of assessment, Item 15(A)(2) was required to b .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e considered but in the instant case, we find the appellants have taken this plea before the original authority as also before the Collector (Appeals) and both the authorities have failed to give any findings in regard to this plea. In view of this, we hold that the learned Consultant s failure to take this plea at the time of hearing can only be an omission on his part and for his omission, the appellants in the interest of justice should not be allowed to suffer. 4. We find that for consideration of any additional plea, in fairness, an opportunity will have to be given to the other side. In this case, inasmuch as, the plea has not been gone into at all by the lower authorities and no facts are on record for us to give any findings in th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates