9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (8) TMI 61X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er. Even during this period, the petitioner has manufactured and sold footwear to its buyers directly under the brand names `MYSHU' and `VIKING', and to another company called Bata India Limited affixing the brand name `BATA'. 2. The notifications issued by Central Government from time to time under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules framed under the Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) prior to 9-5-1977 exempted manufacturers of footwear that employed not more than 49 persons and utilised power not exceeding 2 horse power for payment of excise duties without any other stipulation. 3. But, Government in its Notification No. 88/77-C.E., dated 9-5-1977 issued under the same Rule, did not follow the earlier pattern and appended an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -1 Division, Bangalore (hereinafter referred to as the A.C.) by his order C. No. V/36/3/37/77, dated 6-6-1978 (Exhibit F) has found that the petitioner had remitted a short levy of Rs. 32,976.80 towards excise duty for the aforesaid period and has issued a consequent demand notice on 14-6-1978 (Exhibit G). In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the validity of the Explanation appended to the notification dated 9-5-1977, the assessment order made by the A.C. on 6-6-1978 (Exhibit F) and the consequent demand notice dated 14-6-1978 (Exhibit G)." 4. At the forefront, the petitioner has urged that the Explanation added to the notification dated 9-5-1977, treating the manufacturer as a non-manufact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s a manufacturer. 10. The Explanation appended to the notification both in law and fact treats a manufacturer as a non-manufacturer and a non-manufacturer as a manufacturer. Without any doubt, the Explanation runs counter to the scheme and object of the Act and the Rules and destroys the concept of, manufactured goods and manufacturer on whom only excise duties are levied under the Act. On any legal principle, it is not possible to hold that the Explanation is a term and condition that subserves the Act and the Rules. The power to grant exemption under Rule 8 cannot be exercised de hors the Act and the Rules as has been done by Government. In this view, the Explanation is liable to be struck down. 11. In Bata India Limited's case the pe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
