9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (3) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh (French Polish) Rules, 1959. They have been served with demands for payment of basic excise duty as well as special excise duty amounting to ₹ 3,736.44 and ₹ 4,773.12 for the period 6-7-1963 to 26-6-1966 respectively by the Range Officer, Kanchipurm. The petitioners approached the Assistant Collector of Central Excise questioning those demands and the Assistant Collector confirmed t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture French Polish under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 nor did they pay any duty of excise on their manufacture. Only in the year 1965 the Excise authorities informed the petitioners that they are to take out licences under the Central Excises and Salt Act for the manufacture of French Polish which comes under the entry `Varnish in Schedule I, and it is only thereafter the petitioners ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vires. Secondly it is contended that the demands cannot also be brought under Rule 9(2) as suggested by the respondents. Thirdly it is contended that the Notification Nos. 137/60-C.E., dated 1-10-1960 and 109 of 1963, dated 6-7-1963 have not been properly construed by the Excise Authorities and that on a proper interpretation of the two notifications, the benefit of exemption conferred by the firs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... will equally apply to Rule 10A. He, therefore, states that he will not be able to sustain the demands impugned in these writ petitions under Rule 10A in view of the decision in W.P. No. 1053 of 1968 etc. W.P. No. 1053/68- Citadel Pharmaceuticals, Madras v. D.R.O. Chingleput and 2 others, but that he would sustain the same under Rule 9(2). 5. Therefore, we have to see whether the demands could ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at the demands in these cases purport to have been issued under Rule 10A cannot also be sustained under Rule 9(2). It is not the case of the department that the demands could be sustained under any other statutory provision. Obviously Rule 9(2) cannot be applied as there is no levy before. Therefore the demands in question have to be quashed on that short ground. In that view it is not necessary t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
