9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (5) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Trichy in the respective appeals. 2. These appeals coming up for orders upon perusing the records and upon hearing the arguments of Shri S.K. Choudhury, Senior Departmental Representative for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of the counsel/authorised representative in the respective appeals for the respondent, the Tribunal makes the following order : 3. These three appeals have been preferred by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Madurai against the orders of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Trichy had demanded duty under Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 from each of the respondents in respect of goods cleared by them during the year 1979-80, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated 4-2-1982 C. No. V/68/ 219/82, dated 14-10-1982 2. ED(MAS) 68/83. 1979-80 7-8-1981 ₹ 11,655.42 C. No. V/68/ 15/24/81, dated 6-5-1982 C. No. V/68/ 207/82, dated 7-10-1982 3. ED(MAS) 70/33. 1979-80 17-8-1981 ₹ 20,582.04 C. No. V/68/ 15/29/81, dated 6-2-1982 C. No. V/68/ 81, dated 20-10-1982 5. The Senior Departmental Representative argued that these cases along with others had been the subject-matter of writ proceedings in the Madras High Court; that High Court had issued a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ondent-firms before us was not an issue agitated in the High Court. Further the Judgment of the High Court was pronounced in open court; the Department cannot be heard to contend that they were not aware of the general nature of the decision. In the Judgment His Lordship notes, Equally it is not in dispute that the value of the goods cleared for home consumption from the industrial units of the petitioners herein did not exceed 30 lakhs during the preceding financial year. Hence the plea that the Department was awaiting the Judgment of the High Court before issuing the demands is not an acceptable one. 7. The representatives of the respondents also drew our attention to the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of S. Maha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itution or the equitable principle of estoppel can be invoked so as to set at nought the rule as to the period during which alone such excise duties could be collected. As we said, such general rules applicable to common litigation cannot be attracted in cases where courts are asked to consider about the propriety of a tax. As such, a levy of a demand in connection therewith is strictly governed by the law and the rules made thereunder in relation to it, no extraneous considerations can be thought of for purposes of justifying such a tax or a demand. We are of the view that the Judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Civil Appeal No. 262 of 1971 is the necessary information which the Revenue secured for them to act in accordance with t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
