9911796707
TMI Blog1993 (9) TMI 129X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ns of law. If the factual situation alleged by the authorities is true, it changes the entire complexion of the controversy. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court on the said ground. The result is that the declaration made by the High Court with respect to the validity of the Explanation in the Exemption Notification aforesaid stands set aside. The demand notices issued to the Respondents are also quashed herewith. We make it clear that it shall be open to the authorities to issue fresh demands upon the persons liable to pay the duty after investigating the necessary facts and an adjudication according to law. If and when they do so, it is made clear, the question of limitation shall not be raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the earlier notifications, which reads as follows : "NOTIFICATION CENTRAL EXCISES GSR. - In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and in supersession of the Notification of the Government of India in the Department of Revenue and Banking No. 103/76-Central Excise, dated the 16th March, 1976 the Central Government hereby exempts footwear falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 36 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944) from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon : Provided that : such footwear is produced by or on behalf of a manufacturer(i) in one or more factories, including the precincts thereof, wherein not more than 49 workers are w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs, it cannot be deemed to be the manufacturer or producer, merely because it affixes its brand thereon and sells them. It questions the validity of the Explanation aforesaid. According to it, Rule 8 does not empower the Central Government to create a duty liability where none exists under the Statute nor does enable the Central Government to shift the duty from the manufacturer/producer to someone else who is not the manufacturer/purchaser of the goods concerned. In the counter-affidavit filed by the authorities they not only justified the validity of the notification and the Explanation but raised that further contention that Respondent Nos. 4 to 7 in the Writ Petition were really ancillaries of the Respondent. It was the case of the reve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it Petition did not speak of the Explanation aforesaid; they did not spell out their stand clearly; they referred to the notification as such - though the Respondent referred specifically to the Explanation in his letters. Be that as it may, it was appropriate that the true factual situation is ascertained first before pronouncing upon the questions of law. If the factual situation alleged by the authorities is true, it changes the entire complexion of the controversy. We are, therefore, constrained to set aside the judgment of the High Court on the said ground. The result is that the declaration made by the High Court with respect to the validity of the Explanation in the Exemption Notification aforesaid stands set aside. The demand notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
