Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + HC Central Excise - 2017 (5) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (5) TMI 759 - HC - Central ExciseForced recovery of duty / collection of undated cheques - Anti Evasion of duty - Rate of duty - mobile phone batteries - mobile phone charger - LED bulbs - the unit was paying duty @ 2% ad valorem on mobile phone battery and mobile phone charger, and 6% on LED bulbs - According to the Respondents, the tariff rate of duties on these products is 12.5% ad valorem - benefit of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17th March, 2012 - Held that: - The ADC has been unable to point out any provision of law or any notification or any circular that permitted the officers who visited the Petitioner’s business premises to collect undated cheques which purportedly constitute the differential duty. He is further unable to explain how these undated cheques were kept with the Department and why indulgence was shown by the Department to the Petitioner when the Petitioner requested for some time to arrange for the duty amount. This illegal practice adopted by the Anti-Evasion Department of Central Excise requires a deeper investigation. The Court has every reason to believe that this has come to light only because the Petitioner has approached this Court. This practice is perhaps being adopted in a number of instances which are yet to come to the notice of the Court. There will be serious ramifications if this practice is allowed to continue unchecked. In the first place, it must be realised that the officers of the Anti Evasion Wing of the Central Excise Department have to function within the four corners of the law. They are bound by not only the CE Act and the Rules made thereunder but all the notifications/circulars/instructions issued from time to time including those issued by the CBEC. There is no scope at all to collect duty and that too without even quantifying the extent of duty evasion. The Court would like the matter to be carried out to its logical conclusion - the writ petition is kept pending to ensure compliance of the directions mentioned.
|