9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (6) TMI 44X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in The Commissioner of Excise v. Padmanabhan Nair [ILR 1979 (2) Kerala 218], according to the learned single Judge, perhaps requires a reconsideration in view of the decision in A.C.C. Ltd. v. Commercial Tax Officer (AIR 1981 SC 1887) and Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras v. Gopalakrishna Kone (AIR 1965 Madras 445) and the issue was referred to a Division Bench in the aforesaid context. The d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the petitioner, in the management in the year 1994 and during 1995, a proposal had come to be passed, for levying duty and penalty. The order is dated 4-12-1995 which is produced as Ext. P1. It appears that the representation submitted had been rejected. When recovery steps had been initiated, this original petition came to be filed. 5. Mr. Jayakumar submits that per se Ext. P1 indicates that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11 which reads as follows :- "11. Recovery of duties or charges short-levied or erroneously refunded. - When duties of charges have been short-levied through inadvertence, error, collusion or misconstruction on the part of an Excise Officer, or through mis-statement as to the quantity or description of such goods on the part of the owner, or when any such duty or charge, after having been levied, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... between Rule 11 and Rule 12 is patent and when under Rule 11, the assessment can be done in respect of a period of six months from the date on which the duty and charge is paid, restrictions or limitation for demand is not there in Rule 12. Although it would have been possible to construe Rule 12, so as to bring in the matter similar, as covered by Rule 11 since so far as Rule 11 has specifically ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
