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

1976 (1) TMI 185

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt of excise duty by another Notification dated 17-7-1970. The resulting position was that during the intervening period between 1-5-1970 and 17-7-1970 Polythene Lay Flat Tubings were assessable to duty under tariff Item 15A (2). Apparently because of ignorance regarding the withdrawal of the exemption as per the Notification dated 1-5-1970 the petitioner-firm which was enjoying the facility of self removal procedure had not credited to the Department the excise duty payable in respect of the Polythene Lay Flat Tubings removed from their factory during the period from 1-5-1970 to 16-7-1970. When this fact came to the notice of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Trivandrum (first respondent), he issued a notice to the petitioner as per Ex .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly payable on the Polythene Lay Flat Tubings cleared from the petitioners factory during the period when the commodity was not exempt from payment of duty. Though the petitioner preferred a revision petition to the Government of India that was dismissed by the Central Government as per order Ext. P-7 dated 31-3-1973. After the rejection of the petitioners revision petition by the Government of India, the first respondent issued to the petitioner the communication Ext. P-8 dated 5-7-1973 demanding payment of duty in question within 10 days of the receipt of the said order. This writ petition has been brought by the petitioner seeking to quash Exts. P-1, P-3, P-5, P-7, and P-8. 3. The main contention urged before us by the learned advocate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ly, the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act was silent on the question of levy of duty on escaped turnover, Rule 12 in so far as it made a provision for assessing the escaped turnover was invalid since the charging power under section 3 of the Act could not be extended by a rule. Even though Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 is a provision in language scope and content between section 3 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Act (Act XVI of 1955) and section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act. To appreciate this it is necessary to read the two sections. Section 3 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparation (Excise Duties) Act is in the following terms :- 3. Dut .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y in respect of all excisable goods other than salt which are produced or manufacture in India by, or on behalf of, Government, as they apply in respect of goods which are not produced or manufactured by Government. (2) The Central Government may, be notification in the Official Gazette, fix, for the purpose of levying the said duties, tariff value of any article enumerated either specifically or under general headings, in the First Schedule as chargeable with any ad valorem and may alter any tariff values for the time being in force. (3) Different tariff values may be fixed for different classes or descriptions of the same article. A comparative study of the two previsions reveals that there is a fundamental difference in the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he levy and the collection of duties of excise on all excisable goods other than Salt are to be made. The provision contained in Rule 10A is fully within the scope of the said power. Hence we are unable to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 10A is ultra vires the rule-making power conferred by the Act on the Central Government. 5. It is true that in Agrawal Bros. vs. Union of India (1972) II MLJ 477 one of the questions raised before the Madras High Court concerned the validity of Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules. But it is seen from the judgment that the learned Judges did not have to consider the said question on the merits in view of the submission made by the Standing Counsel for the Central Gove .....

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