9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 26X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iate to first consider the process of manufacture of some of the varieties produced by the petitioner Company. To explain this the respondents have filed a diagram which was not disputed on behalf of the petitioner. 3. Iron ore which is brought into factory, together with other inputs, is put in the blast furnace which produces Molten Iron. Out of this Molten Iron, some is sent to pig casting machine for manufacturing pig iron and at that stage no duty is paid on it. Some of the Molten Iron is sent to the foundry for manufacturing, "Ingot Moulds" and "Bottom Stools". In this process of manufacture of ingot moulds and Bottom Stools unserviceable scrap is also left behind. This part of the Molten Iron which comes to the foundry out of which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... steel ingots as and when so required. According to the petitioner, recovery of the Excise Duty on the steel ingots so manufactured without giving an allowance for the duty paid ingot moulds and Bottom Stools amounts to double imposition of the same duty for which there is no sanction in law. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the imposition of duty on the steel ingot which according to him is already paid at the time of the clearance from the blast furnace i.e. the foundry. 6 7. **** 8. The respondents have not disputed the principle that there could not be a double imposition of Excise Duty on the same material. According to them, this factory is working under the self-determination of duty procedure under Chapter VII-A, Rule ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Steel Co. Ltd. v. Union of India and others (Civil Writ jurisdiction cases Nos. 614 to 626 of 1967) wherein a similar question was involved. Their Lordships in that decision observed that "It is a well-settled principle that law Court will not interpret any taxing statute in such a manner that its effect will be to cast a burden twice over for payment of tax on the tax payer, unless the language of the statute is so compelling certain that the law Court has no alternative than to accept it." 11. A similar question arose before the Calcutta High Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. Union of India and others [Civil Rule Nos. 1426(W) - 1429(W) of 1969]. A copy of the judgment of that case has also been filed by the petitioner. The learned Jud ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ccording to the petitioner, tax has subsequently been also imposed at a later stage. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner in this behalf, was that the taxing authorities are in possession of the whole record, and material whereby it can always find out the amount of tax to which the petitioner is entitled to set off or refund. In our opinion, this contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not correct. Since it is the petitioner which claims a set-off or a refund, it would also be for him to satisfy the authorities concerned on this question. The relevant notification in this behalf also cast a duty on the petitioner to satisfy the taxing authorities on this question and it is then only that the petitioner w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
