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

1977 (7) TMI 52

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , showing that he has cured 1140 kgs. of chewing tobacco. When the Central Excise Officer visited the petitioner's place 9-9-1968, for ascertaining as to how he disposed of the cured tobacco, the petitioner stated that he had transferred 1106 kgs of tobacco to a private warehouse licensee, one K.S. Ponnuswami, who is a licensed dealer in Bhavani as per transport certificate T.P. No. 3. 247123, dated 24-8-1968. When the said Ponnuswami was contacted he denied having transported the tobacco from the petitioner premises. 2. Thereafter an excise duty of rupees 2,388.96 payable on the said stock of 1106 kgs. of chewing tobacco was demanded from the petitioner by an order of the Superintendent of Central Excise, Integrated Divisional Office, Er .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... reported the transfer of ownership and acknowledged by the Central Excise Officer at Bhavani, the proper officer, the petitioner cannot question the levy of excise duty on him. 4. In the counter affidavit the respondents have not disputed the assertion made by the petitioner that the goods were transferred under a valid transport permit signed by the vendee, Ponnuswami, and that this has been reported to the Excise Officer at Dharapuram, who has acknowledged the same. The Central Excise Officer at Dharapuram is the proper officer with reference to the petitioner. The counter-affidavit also proceeds on the basis that the petitioner in fact produced the duplicate foil dated 24-8-1968 issued by the purchaser, the said Ponnuswami, a bonded w .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... permits by him to six dealers including the petitioner, but denying the receipt of the goods on the basis of the transport permits. Ponnuswami does not however seem to have taken any steps for finding out what happened to the permits despatched by him. His conduct in obtaining the transport permit form from the excise authorities and sending it to six dealers and keeping quiet even though he has not received the goods in pursuance of the permits sent by him seems to be quite suspicious. It may be that after the receipt of the goods he has not accounted for the stocks received by him in his accounts, with a view to evade his liability towards excise duty. However, it is not necessary to go into Ponnuswami's conduct in this case. It is suffic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd who is to acknowledge the same. 6. In this context, it is necessary to scan through the relevant rules, R. 19 imposes a duty on cured tobacco, as soon as it is cured and is in a fit state for sale, and makes the curer liable for payment of the duty until the liability is to the knowledge and satisfaction of the proper officer, transferred as provided in R. 29 to another person duly licensed to carry on business in such tobacco. R. 24 enables the curer to clear the tobacco on payment of duty or deposit the same in a public warehouse or to deposit in bonded store-room in the curer's own premises or transfer to a private dealer for the storage of such products. In this case, the petitioner claims to have transferred the tobacco to a whole .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er, commission agent, or manufacturer, are situate." According to this definition, so for as the curer is concerned, the officer in whose jurisdiction he has carried on the curing operation will be the proper officer. Therefore, the Central Excise Officer, Dharapuram, within whose jurisdiction the petitioner has cured the tobacco is the proper officer so far as he is concerned and the petitioner's duty is only to report to him about the transfer of the ownership of the tobacco and get his acknowledgment for the same. Even otherwise, having regard to the object of the rules, the petitioner is liable to account for the tobacco in his possession only to the Central Excise Officer at Dharapuram. Therefore, by way of rendering an account of th .....

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