Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Section Wise 1980 1980 (3) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA Law of Competition PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 2 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Case Laws

Showing 101 to 120 of 201 Records

• 1980 (3) TMI 101
  
  The Government of India found that the copper wire in question exceeded the sectional area limit under Item 33B(l) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The demand for alleged short levy was considered barred by limitation as it was issued after the prescribed time period. The impugned order-in-appeal was upheld, and review proceedings were dropped.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 100
  
  The Government of India considered a case involving decorative block boards falling under Item 16B of the Central Excise Tariff. The Asstt. Collector had used prices from Delhi for assessment, but the Government found that prices at the factory gate should be used, even if sales there were minimal. The Government set aside previous orders and directed assessment based on factory gate prices. (Citation: 1980 (3) TMI 100 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA)

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 99
  
  The Government of India considered a revision application regarding the excise duty on latex foam sponge. The petitioners sold most of their products to distributors, and the government determined that the assessable value should be based on sales to independent wholesale buyers. The government set aside the previous order and directed a redetermination of the assessable value.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 98
  
  The Government of India considered a Revision Application regarding the classification of cold rolled strips. The applicants reduced the dimensions of the strips purchased from the market. Government held that this reduction does not constitute manufacturing. The Department's argument about the classification of raw material was rejected. The order-in-appeal was set aside, and the revision application was allowed.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 97
  
  The judgment in the case of Government of India v. Esso Shock Absorber Fluid G-1 held that the product is not chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 11B of the Central Excise Tariff as 'blended lubricating oils and greases'. The petitioners' contentions were accepted by the Government based on a clarification issued by the Board. The revision application was allowed.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 96
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Whether the suit for refund of excise duty was time-barred.
  2. Applicability of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  3. Applicability of Rule 11 and Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
  4. Determination of the limitation period for filing the suit.
  5. Maintainability of the suit after rejection of the refund application by the Assistant Collector.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Whether the suit for refund of excise duty was time-barred:
  The defendant argued that the entire suit was time-barred and should not have been decreed. The contention was based on the limitation prescribed under Rule 11 read with Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, which stipulates a one-year period for claiming a refund of excise duty erroneously paid. However, the court held that the suit was governed by the general law of limitation, which prescribes a three-year period for such suits. The court emphasized that under ordinary law, the limitation for such a suit is three years from the accrual of the cause of action.
  
  2. Applicability of Section 40 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
  Section 40 provides protection for actions taken under the Act. The court noted that the defendant's counsel conceded that the duty in question was not chargeable according to the correct interpretation of the notifications. Therefore, the act of the Excise Department in realizing the duty was not considered an act done under the Act. Consequently, the suit was maintainable and not barred under Section 40.
  
  3. Applicability of Rule 11 and Rule 173-J of the Central Excise Rules, 1944:
  Rule 11 stipulates a three-month period for claiming a refund of duties paid erroneously, while Rule 173-J extends this period to one year. The court clarified that these rules apply to applications for refunds under the special act, not to suits filed under ordinary law. Therefore, the limitation for the suit was governed by the general law of limitation, which is three years.
  
  4. Determination of the limitation period for filing the suit:
  The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court judgments in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bhailal Bhai and State of Kerala v. Aluminium Industries Ltd., which established that the period of limitation for recovery of money paid under a mistake of law is three years from the date when the mistake is known. The court accepted that the plaintiffs discovered the mistake when they became aware of the Allahabad High Court judgment in February 1976. The suit filed on 12-11-1976 was within the three-year limitation period.
  
  5. Maintainability of the suit after rejection of the refund application by the Assistant Collector:
  The defendant argued that the suit was not maintainable because the plaintiffs' application for a refund was rejected by the Assistant Collector as time-barred. The court rejected this argument, stating that the application was dismissed on the ground of limitation, not on merits. The court held that the rejection of the application under the special act did not bar the plaintiffs from seeking a remedy through a suit under ordinary law.
  
  Conclusion:
  The court dismissed the appeal filed by the Union of India and allowed the appeal filed by the plaintiffs. The decretal amount was enhanced from Rs. 40,485/- to Rs. 1,53,002.35 paise, with costs of both courts. The defendant was ordered to pay the decretal amount within four months, failing which they would be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of the judgment.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 95
  
  Issues:
  1. Whether the petitioner was required to declare the foreign exchange in his possession while leaving India.
  2. Whether the petitioner's act of attempting to export foreign exchange in contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act rendered it liable to confiscation.
  3. Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner was excessive.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The petitioner was charged for attempting to export foreign exchange in contravention of Section 13 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. The petitioner argued that as a transit passenger, he was not required to declare the foreign exchange in his possession while leaving India. The Judicial Magistrate acquitted the petitioner in a criminal case, stating that there was no obligation for the petitioner to make a declaration. However, the government observed that under Section 13 of the Act, both import and export of foreign exchange without permission are prohibited. Even if the petitioner was in transit, the export of foreign exchange was illegal, leading to confiscation under the Customs Act. The government disagreed with the Magistrate's view and upheld the confiscation of the foreign exchange.
  
  2. The petitioner contended that since he was only a transit passenger carrying the foreign exchange from Bangladesh to Bangkok via India, he should not be held liable for attempting to export the currency. The government, however, pointed out that the foreign exchange, even if brought into India by the petitioner, was considered imported under the Act. As the petitioner was taking it out to Bangkok, it constituted illegal export under Section 13(2) of the Act. The government upheld the confiscation of the foreign exchange as correct in law, rejecting the petitioner's argument based on transit status.
  
  3. The Additional Collector of Customs had confiscated the foreign exchange and imposed a penalty of Rs. 5000 on the petitioner, which was confirmed by the Board. The government found the penalty appropriate considering the gravity of the offense. Despite the petitioner's plea that the penalty was excessive, the government upheld the penalty and rejected the revision application. The confiscation of the foreign exchange and the penalty imposed were deemed legally justified given the petitioner's actions and the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act and the Customs Act.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 94
  
  ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

  The primary legal issue considered by the Court was whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, which reduced the duty on disproportionated resin acid from 60% to 27.5%. This issue required the Court to interpret the relevant provisions of the Customs Act, particularly Sections 12 and 15, and the notification issued under Section 25.

  ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

  Relevant legal framework and precedents:

  The Customs Act, 1962, particularly Section 12, serves as the charging section, mandating that duties of customs be levied at rates specified under the Indian Tariff Act, 1934, unless otherwise provided. Section 15 determines the date for the rate of duty and tariff valuation, specifically stating that for goods cleared from a warehouse under Section 68, the applicable rate is the one in force on the date of removal from the warehouse. The notification under Section 25(1) allowed for a reduced duty on disproportionated resin acid, provided it was imported for the manufacture of synthetic rubber.

  Court's interpretation and reasoning:

  The Court interpreted Section 15(1)(b) to mean that the rate of duty applicable is the one in force on the date the goods are removed from the warehouse, not the date of importation. The Court emphasized that the exemption notification was prospective and applied to goods removed from the warehouse after its issuance.

  Key evidence and findings:

  The goods were imported and warehoused before the issuance of the exemption notification but were removed from the warehouse after the notification came into effect. The appellants paid the reduced duty of 27.5% upon removal, which was later contested by the Assistant Collector of Customs, who claimed the original 60% duty was applicable.

  Application of law to facts:

  The Court applied Section 15(1)(b) and the exemption notification, concluding that the relevant date for determining the duty rate was the date of removal from the warehouse. Since the goods were removed after the notification's issuance, the reduced duty rate was applicable.

  Treatment of competing arguments:

  The Court rejected the argument that the date of importation should determine the duty rate, as this would render Section 15(1)(b) ineffective. The Court also dismissed the notion that the exemption could not apply to goods imported before the notification, emphasizing the prospective nature of the notification and the statutory framework that ties the duty rate to the date of removal.

  Conclusions:

  The Court concluded that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the exemption notification, and the duty rate of 27.5% was correctly applied when the goods were removed from the warehouse.

  SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

  The Court held that the exemption notification under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, applied to goods removed from the warehouse after its issuance, regardless of the date of importation. The Court stated, "The rate of duty as well as the rate of exchange applicable to imported goods shall be the rate and valuation in force on the date on which the goods are actually removed from the warehouse." This interpretation harmonizes the notification with the substantive provisions of the Act.

  The Court also referenced a Supreme Court judgment that supported the principle that the rate of duty is determined by the date of removal from the warehouse, aligning with the statutory provisions of Section 15.

  In conclusion, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the orders of the Assistant Collector of Customs, and directed the respondents to refund the excess duty paid by the appellants, including interest. The Court also ordered the respondents to pay the costs of the appellants for both the trial and appellate proceedings.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 93
  
  Issues:
  1. Challenge to the validity of proceedings initiated by the Collector of Central Excise.
  2. Power of the Collector to re-adjudicate the case without a specific direction of remand by the Board.
  3. Interpretation of previous court judgments in similar cases.
  4. Application of the principle of natural justice in re-adjudication of the case.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The petitioner challenged the validity of proceedings initiated by the Collector of Central Excise, Bombay, following the Board's order-in-appeal vacating the Collector's original order. The petitioner contended that the Collector had no power to re-adjudicate the case without a specific direction of remand by the Board. The Board rejected this plea, leading to the revision application by the petitioner.
  
  2. During the hearing, the petitioner's counsel referenced judgments from the Madras High Court and the Gujarat High Court. However, the government agreed with the Board's finding that these judgments were not applicable to the present case. Reference was made to a Gujarat High Court decision in another case, emphasizing that a remand or de novo inquiry can be implied even without an express direction, as long as the intention is clear from the order.
  
  3. The government highlighted that the intention of the Central Board of Revenue in vacating the Collector's order was to ensure that the proceedings were not terminated but rather continued to be decided on their merits. The judgment in the Wintex Mills case clarified that the words "without prejudice to the merits of the case" indicated a clear intention to allow further inquiry into the charges against the petitioner.
  
  4. Ultimately, the government concluded that the Collector's decision to re-adjudicate the case after complying with the principles of natural justice, as confirmed by the Board, was legally correct. The application for revision was therefore rejected based on the interpretation of previous judgments and the application of the principle of natural justice in the re-adjudication process.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 92
  
  Issues:
  1. Refund of excess customs duty paid on synthetic diamond grits.
  2. Requirement of executing a bond at the time of importation.
  3. Production of 'End Use Certificate' for claiming concessional rate and refund.
  
  Analysis:
  1. The petitioner, a manufacturer of synthetic diamond tools, imported synthetic diamond grits for the manufacture of grinding wheels. The petitioner paid full duty on the imported material but later sought a refund based on a notification exempting certain materials from customs duty if used for specific purposes. The Assistant Collector of Customs rejected the refund claim due to lack of necessary documents proving the material's use. Subsequent appeals were also dismissed on similar grounds. The Government of India rejected the revision petition citing failure to execute a bond at the time of importation and lack of proper certificates. However, the delay in producing the 'End Use Certificate' was attributed to administrative delays beyond the petitioner's control.
  
  2. The Court noted that the Assistant Collector did not mention several grounds for rejection, and it was established that the imported material was synthetic diamond grits. The delay in obtaining the 'End Use Certificate' was deemed genuine, caused by bureaucratic delays. The Court emphasized that the right to a lower customs tariff arises from actual use in manufacturing, and the certificate serves as evidence, not a precondition. Drawing a parallel with sales tax matters, the Court held that the certificate's non-production at the time of the refund application should not disqualify the petitioner.
  
  3. Regarding the requirement of executing a bond at the time of importation, the Court reasoned that the bond ensures the material's intended use and eligibility for concessional rates. However, if the importer pays full duty upfront and later proves the material's use, the bond requirement is not mandatory. The Court held that the petitioner's payment of full duty initially did not necessitate executing a bond. The Court directed the authorities to reconsider the quantity covered by the 'End Use Certificate' and determine the refund eligibility accordingly.
  
  4. Consequently, the Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the Government's order and remitting the matter for reconsideration based on the Court's observations. The petitioner was instructed to provide necessary material to support the refund claim. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 91
  
  Issues Involved:
  1. Validity of sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  2. Whether the fixation of tariff value for liquid chlorine at Rs. 500/- per metric tonne was arbitrary and not in accordance with the guidelines.
  
  Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity of Sections 3(2) and 3(3) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944:
  The petitioners argued that sections 3(2) and 3(3) are ultra vires as they confer unguided discretionary power to the Central Government to fix tariff values. However, the court held that the guidelines are impliedly furnished by the nature of the excise duty under section 3(1) and the valuation principles in section 4. It was noted that excise duty is a tax on the manufacture and production of goods, and the value for duty is determined based on the manufacturing cost and profit, excluding post-manufacturing costs and profits. The court referenced the Supreme Court's interpretation in A.K Roy v. Voltas Ltd. and Atic Industries v. Asstt. Collector, Central Excise, emphasizing that the government must follow these guidelines when fixing tariff values. Consequently, sections 3(2) and 3(3) were not struck down as they did not suffer from excessive delegation.
  
  2. Fixation of Tariff Value for Liquid Chlorine:
  The petitioners contended that the tariff value of Rs. 500/- per metric tonne for liquid chlorine, as fixed by the notifications, was arbitrary and not based on any guidelines. The court examined the basis for the tariff value, noting that the initial claim by the respondents that it was based on the Tariff Commission's recommendation was abandoned. The revised stand was that the value was based on the weighted average price of all manufacturers, which was Rs. 368/- per metric tonne. However, the court found that the actual prices charged by most manufacturers were significantly lower than Rs. 500/- per metric tonne, with the petitioners' average invoice price ranging from Rs. 103.76 to Rs. 281.84 per metric tonne.
  
  The court concluded that the Central Government did not follow the guidelines furnished by sections 3(1) and 4, which require the value to reflect the manufacturing cost and profit. The fixation of Rs. 500/- per metric tonne was not justified even by the weighted average price, and the reasons provided by the government, including administrative convenience, could not override the statutory guidelines. The court cited precedents from Century Spinning and Manufacturing Co. v. Union of India and Subharayan v. The Union of India, reinforcing that the weighted average price is not a valid criterion for tariff value fixation. Thus, the notifications fixing the tariff value at Rs. 500/- per metric tonne were deemed invalid.
  
  Judgment:
  The petition was allowed, and the impugned notifications fixing the tariff value of liquid chlorine were quashed. The excise authorities were directed to assess the excise duty based on the invoice value for the relevant period and refund any excess amount collected. The bank guarantee was discharged, and no order as to costs was made. The security amount was ordered to be refunded to the petitioner.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 90
  
  Issues:
  1. Determination of customs duty on imported pot motors under Entry 72(3) or Entry 73(21).
  2. Interpretation of the nature of pot motors as component parts of spinning machines or independent electric motors.
  3. Challenge to the Government of India's decision on the classification of pot motors.
  4. Application of judicial review in matters of customs duty assessment.
  
  Analysis:
  
  The judgment involved a dispute regarding the classification of imported pot motors for rayon spinning machines under customs duty entries. The petitioner, a manufacturer of cloth and rayon yarn, imported pot motors essential for rayon spinning machines. The petitioner contended that the customs duty should be under Entry 72(3) of the Indian Customs Tariff as these pot motors were component parts essential for the spinning machines. However, the Customs authorities argued for charging duty under Article 73(21) for electric motors and parts thereof, as these pot motors were not manufactured in India, leading to countervailing duty under Section 2A of the Indian Tariff Act.
  
  The Government of India's decision upheld the view that the pot motors were electric motors, despite being component parts of spinning machines. The petitioner challenged this decision, arguing that the dominant nature of the pot motors should be determined by their use as component parts of the spinning machines. The court agreed with the petitioner, emphasizing that the pot motors were specially designed as essential component parts, as per Entry 72(3), and not independent electric motors under Entry 73(21).
  
  Moreover, the court referred to a Supreme Court decision supporting the classification of pot motors as component parts. The judgment highlighted the scope of judicial review in matters of customs duty assessment, stating that the court could interfere if the authorities' construction was unreasonable or perverse. In this case, the court found the Government of India's decision to be unreasonable and perverse, leading to the quashing of the decision and directing the refund of the countervailing duty collected from the petitioner.
  
  Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, emphasizing that the pot motors fell under Entry 72(3) as essential component parts of the spinning machines, not under Entry 73(21) for electric motors. The judgment showcased the application of judicial review to ensure the correct interpretation of customs duty entries and the classification of imported goods.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 89
  
  Issues:
  1. Challenge to the demand and collection of excise duty on Flush Doors under Entry 16B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  2. Interpretation of whether Flush Doors fall under Entry 16B which covers plywood-related products.
  3. Examination of the common parlance and commercial sense of Flush Doors as a finished product.
  4. Analysis of the components of Flush Doors and their classification under Entry 16B.
  5. Consideration of the implications of the "or the like" phrase in Entry 16B.
  6. Comparison of ISI specifications for Block Board and Flush Doors.
  7. Determination of whether Flush Doors are distinct from boards under Entry 16B.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  1. The petitioner challenged the demand for excise duty on Flush Doors under Entry 16B, contending that the order was without jurisdiction. The respondent Excise Authorities claimed that Flush Doors should be classified under Entry 16B due to their composition.
  2. After arguments from both parties, it was established that while the components of Flush Doors, such as boards and plywood, are mentioned in Entry 16B, the wooden frame enclosing these components is not included. The court examined whether a Flush Door is merely a combination of board and plywood, both covered in Entry 16B.
  3. The court considered the common understanding and commercial perception of Flush Doors as distinct from individual components like boards and plywood. It emphasized that the finished product, Flush Doors, cannot be equated to its raw materials and must be viewed as a separate entity.
  4. It was determined that the appearance and composition of Flush Doors, with a wooden frame enclosing boards and plywood, transform the individual materials into a unique product different from those listed in Entry 16B. The court highlighted the manufacturing process that creates a distinct object.
  5. The court analyzed the phrase "or the like" in Entry 16B and concluded that it does not encompass Flush Doors, as they do not align with the categories specified in the entry. The inclusion of a wooden frame sets Flush Doors apart from the products listed in the entry.
  6. ISI specifications for Block Board and Flush Doors were presented, demonstrating the additional components in Flush Doors, such as wooden frames and plywood face panels, which differentiate them from boards.
  7. Considering the differences highlighted in the specifications and recognizing the distinct nature of Flush Doors in the market, the court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the order to pay excise duty under Entry 16B. The excess duty collected was to be adjusted or refunded, and future assessments were to be made under the residuary entry.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 88
  
  The judgment pertains to a case involving the Central Government of India and the assessment of Central Excise duty on sparking plugs. The petitioners declared different prices for plugs sold under D.G.S. & D. rate contract and to industrial consumers as Original Equipment. Authorities demanded a costing certificate, but the petitioners argued that selling at reduced prices to industrial consumers was a normal trade practice. The government ruled that different prices for different classes of buyers are allowed under Section 4, and in the absence of evidence showing otherwise, the price to industrial consumers as O.E. is deemed the normal price. The order-in-appeal was set aside, and the Revision Application was allowed.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 87
  
  Issues:
  Interpretation of excise duty entry for super-hardened oil production under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
  
  Analysis:
  The petitioner, a company manufacturing fatty acids, obtained licenses to manufacture super-hardened oil, which was initially exempt from excise duty under a specific notification. However, when the exemption was withdrawn, the Central Excise authorities demanded excise duty on the super-hardened oil under entry 13 of the First Schedule. The petitioner argued that the duty should be levied under the residuary entry 68, not entry 13. The key question was whether super-hardened oil falls under entry 13 or entry 68 of the First Schedule.
  
  The definition of "vegetable product" under entry 13 specifies that it must be fit for human consumption. The petitioner presented certificates from scientific laboratories stating that the super-hardened oils produced were not suitable for human consumption due to their high melting points. These certificates were not contested by the Central Excise authorities or the Union of India. Additionally, a departmental clarification mentioned that oils with melting points above 44^0C are not assessable under entry 13. Therefore, it was established that the super-hardened oils did not fall under entry 13.
  
  Since no specific entry was identified for levying duty on the super-hardened oils, the judgment concluded that they should be taxed under the residuary entry 68. This entry covers "all other goods, not elsewhere specified." As the petitioner's products did not fall under any exceptions to entry 68, the court ruled that excise duty was payable under this entry.
  
  Consequently, the petition succeeded, declaring that the super-hardened oils were chargeable to excise duty under entry 68. A writ of mandamus was issued to prevent the authorities from collecting duty under any other entry and to refund any excess amounts paid by the petitioner. The court directed the refund calculation and cancellation of the bank guarantee provided by the petitioner. The rule was made absolute with costs, providing a comprehensive resolution to the excise duty issue faced by the petitioner.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 86
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Validity and applicability of the Central Government's Press Note and Trade Notice No. 54/77.
  2. Entitlement to benefits under Notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976.
  3. Entitlement to benefits under Notification No. 8/74 dated 18-1-1974.
  4. Jurisdiction and maintainability of the writ petition.
  5. Allegations of promissory estoppel and violation of constitutional provisions.
  6. Assessment of excise duty and the implications of Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Validity and Applicability of the Central Government's Press Note and Trade Notice No. 54/77:
  
  The petitioners challenged the Press Note issued by the Central Government and the subsequent Trade Notice No. 54/77, arguing that these administrative directions interfered with the quasi-judicial functions of the excise authorities. The Court found that the Press Note, being an administrative direction, could not override the statutory notification dated 16-6-1976 issued under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules. This position was supported by the Division Bench decision in the case of Modi Rubber Ltd. v. Board of Central Excise and Customs, which held that the benefits of a statutory notification could not be withheld by any subsequent administrative Press Note or Trade Notice. The Court followed this precedent and struck down the Press Note and Trade Notice as invalid and inoperative.
  
  2. Entitlement to Benefits under Notification No. 198/76 dated 16-6-1976:
  
  The petitioners argued that they were entitled to the benefits under Notification No. 198/76, which provided relief in excise duty for new industrial units. The respondents contended that the benefit was rightly denied as the petitioners did not pass on the benefits to the consumers. The Court, however, held that since the notification did not impose such a condition, the petitioners were entitled to the benefits irrespective of whether they passed on the rebate to the consumers. The Court quashed the orders that deprived the petitioners of these benefits and directed the respondents to refund the amounts realized under the invalid Press Note and Trade Notice.
  
  3. Entitlement to Benefits under Notification No. 8/74 dated 18-1-1974:
  
  The petitioners claimed benefits under Notification No. 8/74, which provided excise duty exemptions for certain production levels. The respondents argued that the petitioners did not qualify as their production started only in December 1976, and thus, they could not be considered operational during the entire financial year 1975-76. The Court agreed with the respondents, stating that the notification required actual clearance of goods in the preceding financial year, which the petitioners did not meet.
  
  4. Jurisdiction and Maintainability of the Writ Petition:
  
  The respondents challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the grounds that an alternative remedy of revision before the Central Government was available. The Court held that since the impugned Press Note emanated from the Central Government, it was futile to seek revision before the same authority. Therefore, the writ petition was maintainable.
  
  5. Allegations of Promissory Estoppel and Violation of Constitutional Provisions:
  
  The petitioners argued that they incurred heavy expenses based on the notifications and that the impugned orders violated Articles 19 and 31 of the Constitution by depriving them of their property. The Court found that the benefits under the statutory notifications constituted property and that the administrative directions could not override these statutory benefits. The plea of promissory estoppel was upheld as the petitioners had relied on the notifications to make significant investments.
  
  6. Assessment of Excise Duty and the Implications of Section 4 of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944:
  
  The respondents argued that the assessable value for excise duty should consider the benefits passed on to consumers. The Court, referencing the Modi Rubber Ltd. case, held that the assessable value should be determined based on the normal price without considering the relief and exemption under the notification. The Court found that recalculating the assessable value to include the rebate would lead to an absurd situation and was not intended by the notification.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The Court allowed the writ petition, quashing the orders and directions that deprived the petitioners of the benefits under the notifications dated 18-1-1974 and 16-6-1976. The Press Note and Trade Notice were struck down as invalid and inoperative. The respondents were directed to refund the amounts realized under these invalid directions, but no interest was granted on these amounts. The parties were left to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 85
  
  Issues Involved:
  
  1. Whether the cost of packing materials should be included in the value of excisable goods for the purpose of levying excise duty.
  2. Whether the refund claim by the petitioner is barred by the limitation period prescribed under Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules.
  3. Whether the excise duty collected on packing materials was unauthorized and illegal.
  4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a refund of the excise duty paid on packing materials.
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  
  1. Inclusion of Packing Costs in Excisable Goods Value:
  
  The petitioner company manufactures ball and roller bearings, which are subject to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The bearings are sold in various types of packing to facilitate storage and protect against damage during transportation. The petitioner argued that excise duty was charged on the value of the bearings, including the cost of packing materials. The court noted that it is settled law that post-manufacturing expenses, such as packing costs, cannot be included in the value of excisable goods for the purpose of determining excise duty. This position was supported by precedents such as the Supreme Court's decision in Voltas Limited and the Division Bench decision in Mansingka Industries. The court reiterated that only the value of the excisable goods at the point of manufacture should be considered, excluding post-manufacturing costs.
  
  2. Limitation Period under Rule 11 of Central Excise Rules:
  
  The respondents contended that the refund claim was barred by Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, which required claims to be made within three months (extended to 12 months under Rule 173J for self-removal procedure cases). The petitioner argued that Rule 11 was not applicable because the levy was unauthorized and illegal, and the claim was based on a mistake of law. The court referred to the Division Bench decision in Mansingka's case, which held that illegal recovery of duty falls outside the scope of Rule 11. The court emphasized that Rule 11 pertains to errors or inadvertent payments, not to unauthorized levies.
  
  3. Unauthorized and Illegal Collection of Excise Duty:
  
  The court held that the inclusion of packing costs in the value of excisable goods was unauthorized and illegal. The Division Bench in Mansingka's case had established that such recoveries are outside the law and cannot be considered mere errors in jurisdiction. The court also referred to the decision in M/s. Ogale Glass Works, which supported the view that unauthorized recoveries are not covered by Rule 11. The court concluded that the excise duty collected on packing materials was not authorized by the Central Excise Act and was therefore illegal.
  
  4. Entitlement to Refund:
  
  The petitioner sought a refund of the excise duty paid on packing materials, arguing that the payment was made under a mistake of law. The court agreed that the claim for refund was valid, as it was made within three years from the discovery of the mistake, in line with Section 72 of the Contract Act. The court rejected the respondents' argument that the refund would result in the unjust enrichment of the petitioner, citing the Supreme Court's observations in Cawasji & Company. However, the court noted that the exact amount of excess duty levied needed to be determined through an inquiry by the departmental authorities. The petitioner was directed to provide the necessary material and account books to ascertain the correct amount of refund.
  
  Conclusion:
  
  The petition was allowed with costs. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise was directed to conduct an inquiry to determine the exact amount of excess duty levied on packing charges and materials, and the petitioner was entitled to a refund based on the findings of this inquiry.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 84
  
  The judgment involves three revision applications arising from a common order-in-appeal. The petitioners did not avail of the opportunity for a personal hearing. Government decided the revision application based on available facts, noting attempts at duty evasion. Confiscation of goods and fines imposed on petitioners were deemed correct and not excessive. Decision to uphold the order in appeal was made, rejecting the revision applications.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 83
  
  Issues:
  - Dispute over levy of c.v. duty on imported consignment of Rutenol Recryst
  - Classification of Rutenol Recryst under Tariff Item 65 of CET as rubber processing chemical-antioxidant
  - Argument regarding actual use of Rutenol Recryst in the manufacture of high density polyethylene instead of rubber
  - Consideration of changing technology impact on product use
  - Evidence presented by petitioners including telex, catalogues, and letters from suppliers
  - Definition and scope of rubber antioxidants in the context of Tariff Item 65 of CET
  - Analysis of chemical composition and literature references regarding Rutenol Recryst as a rubber antioxidant
  - Examination of various publications and authorities recommending Rutenol Recryst as a powerful antioxidant for rubber
  - Rejection of Revision application by the Government of India based on the classification and recognition of Rutenol Recryst as a rubber antioxidant
  
  Detailed Analysis:
  The judgment involves a dispute over the levy of c.v. duty on an imported consignment of Rutenol Recryst, classified under Tariff Item 65 of CET as a rubber processing chemical-antioxidant. The petitioners contested this classification, claiming the consignment was intended for use in the manufacture of high density polyethylene, not rubber. They argued that the changing technology impact should be considered, presenting evidence such as telexes, catalogues, and letters from suppliers to support their case.
  
  The Government of India analyzed the definition and scope of rubber antioxidants in the context of Tariff Item 65 of CET. They observed that rubber antioxidants are organic chemicals used to protect rubber from deterioration, regardless of other potential uses. The chemical composition of Rutenol Recryst was identified as 4, 4'-Thiobis-(6-tert-butyl-3-methyl phenol), confirmed by literature references and supplier information. Various publications and authorities, including Monsanto, recommended Rutenol Recryst as a powerful antioxidant specifically for rubber, further supporting its classification.
  
  The Government highlighted references from authentic sources like the Encyclopaedia of Chemical Technology and Kirk-Othmer's Encyclopaedia, which categorically listed 4, 4'-Thiobis-(6-tert-butyl-meta-cresol) as a commonly used rubber antioxidant. The petitioners' own supplier's leaflet endorsed the use of Rutenol Recryst as a rubber antioxidant. Despite the petitioners' arguments, the Government concluded that the classification of Rutenol Recryst as a rubber antioxidant was well-established in literature and industry recommendations, leading to the rejection of the Revision application.
  
  In summary, the judgment delves into the technical and commercial aspects of classifying Rutenol Recryst as a rubber antioxidant under Tariff Item 65 of CET. It emphasizes the importance of recognized definitions and industry standards in determining the classification of imported goods, ultimately upholding the levy of c.v. duty based on the established use of Rutenol Recryst as a rubber processing chemical-antioxidant.

  ---

• 1980 (3) TMI 82
  
  Issues involved: Assessment of relief under section 84 of the Income Tax Act and set-off of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment year 1966-67.
  
  Assessment of relief under section 84:
  The assessee, a registered firm, claimed relief under section 84 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 1966-67. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) declined to grant relief for machinery not used during the relevant previous year, allowing only a partial relief. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the ITO's decision. However, the Tribunal held that the assessee would be entitled to relief under section 84 if machinery had been purchased before the computation period, even if not used during the relevant year. The Tribunal directed the ITO to verify the claim and allow relief if found true.
  
  Set-off of unabsorbed depreciation:
  Regarding the set-off of Rs. 55,752 representing a loss from the assessment year 1964-65, the Tribunal referred to a previous decision and directed the ITO to determine if the loss included any unabsorbed depreciation not adjusted in the partners' accounts. If so, the unabsorbed depreciation should be allowed for the assessment year 1966-67.
  
  Legal Analysis:
  Section 84 of the Income Tax Act provides for relief on profits derived from industrial undertakings based on capital employed. Rule 19 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, outlines the computation of capital employed. The definition of "written down value" in section 43(6) is crucial in determining the capital employed. The Tribunal's interpretation of the rules and provisions led to the conclusion that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 84 for machinery purchased before the computation period.
  
  Precedent and Decision:
  The Tribunal's decision was supported by legal precedents, including a Bombay High Court case, and a decision by the Madras High Court in a similar case. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision on both issues, stating that the assessee was entitled to relief under section 84 and the unabsorbed depreciation should be set off against the income for the assessment year 1966-67. The references were answered in favor of the assessee, and costs were awarded.
  
  Conclusion:
  The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming the assessee's entitlement to relief under section 84 and the set-off of unabsorbed depreciation for the assessment year 1966-67. The legal analysis of the provisions and precedents supported the decision in favor of the assessee.

  ---

1 ....2345678910........ 11