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

1989 (5) TMI 74

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ry requirement of pre-deposit of the amount of duty and penalty in dispute in appeal. The present appeal has been brought in view of the summary dismissal of the Writ Petition by the Trial Court. 3. The following facts are not in dispute : (1) The original demand for excise duty was raised in respect of precipitated chalk manufactured by the appellant. (2) The case of the appellant before the competent authority was that precipitated chalk was eligible for exemption under Notification No. 23/55 dated April 29, 1955. (3) The competent authority rejected the claim for exemption substantially on the ground that unless the product in question was shown to have been finally used in the manufacture of commodities mentioned in the said not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osit of the amount of duty and penalty in question. However, looking to the financial position of the applicants' company as would be evident from the documents filed by them, we feel that asking the applicants to deposit the full amount of duty and penalty may cause undue hardship to them. Consequently we direct the applicants to deposit the amount of duty demanded for Rs. 1,54,734.30 and dispense with the requirement of the penalty amount for Rs. 30,000/-." 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the decision of the Special Bench (C) of the Tribunal at New Delhi in Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Thirani Chemicals Ltd. 1988 (34) E.L.T. 718 (Tribunal) and urged that the Tribunal has already taken the vie .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4, which has received approval at the hands of the Supreme Court in L. Hirday Narain v. Income Tax Officer, Bareilly, AIR 1971 S.C. 33, has great relevance in this connection. It was there observed as follows: "But there may be something in the nature of the thing empowered to be done, something in the object for which it is to be done, something in the conditions under which it is to be done, something in the title of the person or persons for whose benefit the power is to be exercised, which may couple the power with a duty, and make it the duty of the person on whom the power is reposed to exercise that power when called upon to do so............................... ......................................where a power is deposited with a .....

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