9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (7) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessable value was not decided. The proceedings had been initiated against the appellants holding that their sales to the distributors were to a related person in terms of Section 4(4)(d)(i). With a view to protect themselves they recovered an amount equivalent to the duty which would become payable in case the sales made by the appellants were held as those to the related persons. The issue ultimately came to be decided in favour of the assessee. Since in the meantime Section 11D came to be introduced, deptt. initiated proceedings for recovery of the extra amounts collected in terms of this section. As it is the departmental authorities have included the extra amount collected as above for arriving at the assessable value in terms of Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t, which is striking contrast to Section 11D deal with only a claim relating duty exigible under the Act. In view of the above, we are of the view that the impugned proceedings issued in the nature of demand-cum-show cause notices are totally without jurisdiction and, therefore, liable to be and are hereby quashed. By doing so, we are not to be understood to have wiped of the liability credited under Section 11D or exonerated the petitioners from liability to pay to the credit of the Central Govt. any amount by the petitioners, if they have really been found to have collected from the buyer of any goods as representing duty of excise when there was no liability at all in respect of such goods under the Act. On the other hand, we categorical ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y be enacted. It is also well settled that the absence of a machinery provision does not per se is destructive of the liability otherwise created as a charge which would always subsists till the same is properly quantified, notified and enforced in accordance with law or till such time as the claim becomes time barred or unenforceable due to operation of law. For all the reasons stated above, we declare Section 11D of the Act is valid piece of legislation; but we allow the writ petitions on the only ground of lack of authority in the respondents 2 to 4, particularly the 4th respondent to issue the notices impugned in these writ petitions, at the same time preserving the liability created under Section 11D to be intact to be vindicated, adj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
