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

1995 (10) TMI 124

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ng the period 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986. They had effected this clearance paying a duty of 15% while the Department had taken the stand that the aforesaid rate of 15% duty in terms of Notification 175/86 would not apply to them and instead only the rate of duty of 25% as being availed of by them in terms of the previous Notification 85/85, dated 1-3-1985 as was in force upto 28-2-1986. 2. Aggrieved with the Tribunal s order upholding the decision of the lower authorities and rejecting their appeal, the applicants herein had filed a Writ Petition in the Hon ble Karnataka High Court, which was rejected. Against that judgment rejecting their Writ Petition on the ground that they should have filed an appeal to the Supreme Court or should have fil .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ication which was validly subsisting at the material time by having recourse to a subsequent notification which also had only a limited purpose of putting on hold the said Notification 175/86, dated 1-3-1986 for a limited period of 25-3-1986 to 31-3-1986. He explained that the Notification No. 212/86, dated 25-3-1986 under which Notification 175/86 was made inoperative for the aforesaid period cannot be applied to their disadvantage when they had availed of the benefits available thereunder during the period 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986. There was nothing in the latter notification of 25-3-1986 to delete Notification 175/86 during the period prior to 25-3-1986. Apart from the legal position as contended by him as above, Shri Narayana also referred .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... . Hence, the manufacturers who would have been eligible to duty-free clearances upto Rs. 30.00 lakhs were obviously affected and it was with a view to benefit such manufacturers that these notifications which had been rescinded with effect from 1-3-1986 came to be restored vide notification issued on 25-3-1986. The benefit sought by the applicant herein would be to have the benefit not only under Notifications 77/85 or 85/85 as the case may be, prior to 25-3-1985 on the one hand but also the benefit of Notification 175/86 with effect from 1-3-1986 on the other. He fairly conceded that although Notification 212/86, dated 25-3-1986 did not provide for deletion of Notification 175/86 from 1-3-1986 itself, but only of stay of operation of the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... retrospective character. We also note, as has been noted in the Tribunal s decision in Mysore Cork Industries case, the Notification 212/86 had a limited purpose of putting on hold Notification 175/86 prospectively for a period of about a week between 25-3-1986 and 31-3-1986 and thus does not expressly or otherwise provide for their retrospective obliteration of Notification 175/86 during the earlier period of 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986. 7. With this approach, we have examined the questions which have been framed in the Reference Application, which are reproduced below :- (1) Whether excise duty can be retrospectively levied under the Central Duties of Excise (Retrospective Exemption) Act, 1986? (2) Whether levy of duty at 25% ad valorem u .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... r Notification for the period 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986". The questions at Sl. Nos. (4) and (5) are also referred to the Honourable Court for their valuable advice. The questions as discussed above were finalised in the open Court when both the parties were present; they were agreeable that these questions may be referred on the lines indicated above. Registry to refer the following questions to the Honourable Court with the enclosures cited in the application in para 10 of the Reference Application : (1) Whether levy of duty at 25% ad valorem under Notification 212/86, instead of 15% ad valorem claimed by the applicants under Notification 175/86, during the period 1-3-1986 to 24-3-1986 was legal and justified by denying from 1-3-1986 itsel .....

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