9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (9) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with manufactured products like tobacco packets, pani tobacco etc. He was also dealing in manufactured tobacco viz. pani tobacco, etc. for which no licence or accounts is required under the law of Central Excise that he is not a manufacturer of such pani tobacco. On or about 15th July, 1966, the Central Excise authorities inspected his premises and checked the bill books maintained by him for the sale of pani tobacco for the period from 5th August, 1964 to 9th July, 1966. It was found, 10642 kgs. of pani tobacco had been sold by him. This quantity was not manufactured, but, was purchased from outside for sale. On this, it was concluded that the said quantity of pani tobacco was manufactured by him and on that basis, it was calculated that t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f Rs. 100/-. Then again, on 15th July, 1966, 2105 kgs. of non-duty paid tobacco was also found and penalty was imposed. In addition to the forfeiture of that quantity, the bill books seized from the plaintiff on 15th July, 1966 showed a sale of 10642 kgs. of pani tobacco between the period from 5th August, 1974 to 9th July, 1976. There was no record to show that he has purchased the said quantity from other manufacturers. Therefore,\it has been concluded that the said quantity had been clandestinely manufactured from out of the non-duty paid tobacco. Accordingly, the demand was raised and the assessment has been properly made. The other allegations that there is lack of evidence and that he having not been given proper opportunity to peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a case in which a non-excisable commodity had been wrongly taxed and therefore it must be held that the levy is without jurisdiction. In such a case, the ruling reported in the Provincial Govt. of Madras v. Dasappa, AIR 1964 S.C. 1873, must be held to be applicable. Therefore, according to him, the suit is perfectly maintainable. 7. It is a general principle of law that the ouster of jurisdiction of civil court should not be readily inferred. Such ouster is commonly found in all taxing statutes. Accordingly, Section 35 (2) of the Act states :- "Every order passed in appeal under this section shall subject to the power to revision conferred by Section 36, be final". What exactly is meant by the finality is, obviously the jurisdiction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of the inquiry may be decisive. In the latter case, it is necessary to see if the statute creates a special right or a liability and provides for the determination of the right or liability and further lays down that all questions about the said right and liability shall be determined by the tribunals so constituted, and whether remedies normally associated with actions in civil courts are prescribed by the said statute or not. (3) Challenge to the provisions of the particular Act as ultra vires cannot be brought before Tribunals constituted under that Act. Even the High Court cannot go into the question on a revision or reference from the decision of the Tribunals. (4) When a provision is already declared unconstitutional or the con ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
