9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 806X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a, the excise duty on such products is leviable by Government of India but the same has to be collected through the State. From the impugned order, it is evident that the petitioner manufactures various toiletry products containing alcohol. The stand of the petitioner is that it has already paid excise duty under the Act of 1955. Hence, prima facie it seems that demand of excise duty from the petitioner under the Act would amount to taxing it twice. More so, vide notification dated 10.06.2003, the goods manufactured in the States of Himachal Pradesh and Uttrakhand are being exempted from excise duty for 10 years from the date of commencement of production under the Act. This issue has also not been considered by respondent No. 2. Hence, in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Chapter heading 33030050 and were liable to excise duty under the Act, ignoring the fact that the petitioner was not liable to pay excise duty under Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duty) Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1955'), because as per entry No. 84 of List-I (Union List) of 7th Schedule to Constitution of India, duty of excise on Medicinal and Toilet preparations containing alcohol or opium, Indian hemp and other narcotics drugs had been the subject matter of Union List and, thus, under Article 268 of the Constitution of India, the excise duty on the products made by petitioner had to be leviable by Government of India and not by the State, but the State Government had only been empowered to co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Annexure P-5) and then slept over the matter till 24.09.2013 i.e. for around more than seven years on which date the matter was fixed for personal hearing. Thereafter, the matter was again delayed upto 12.01.2015, on which date the petitioner appeared before respondent No. 2, for personal hearing. The petitioner in its reply categorically pointed out to respondent No. 2 that the products manufactured by it containing liquor were not covered under Chapter note 1(d) of Chapter 33 and thus, were not liable to levy of duty. However, respondent No. 2 passed the impugned order illegally and arbitrarily. Hence the instant writ petition. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impug ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d of the petitioner is that it has already paid excise duty under the Act of 1955. Hence, prima facie it seems that demand of excise duty from the petitioner under the Act would amount to taxing it twice. More so, vide notification dated 10.06.2003 (Annexure P-1), the goods manufactured in the States of Himachal Pradesh and Uttrakhand are being exempted from excise duty for 10 years from the date of commencement of production under the Act. This issue has also not been considered by respondent No. 2. Hence, in our opinion, it would be expedient to remand the case back to respondent No. 2, for taking a decision afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and considering its stand including that raising the demand of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
