Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 2017 (3) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (3) TMI 1357 - SUPREME COURTInterpretation of statute - Evasion of duty - Determination of annual capacity - Held that: - Section 3A(2) only embodies a rule of evide The presumption created under Rule 5 is similar to the one contained in illustration (d) (Illustration (d) – That a thing or state of things which has been shown to be in existence within a period shorter than that within which such things or state of things usually cease to exist, is still in existence) to Section 114 of the Evidence Act. nce which command the department to presume certain facts. Such presumptions are not unknown to law - Whereas presumptions are rules of evidence for determining the existence or otherwise of certain facts in issue in a litigation. Whether an assessee who chooses once to pay duty in terms of Rule 96ZP(3) can be compelled to pay duty calculated in accordance with the said rule for all times to come without any regard to the actual production? - Held that: - The only similarity between Rules 96ZO(3) and 96ZP(3) is that both the Rules seek to eliminate the benefit of the procedure under Section 3A(4) of THE ACT in cases of those assessees who choose to opt for levy and collection of excise duty in accordance with the sub-rules (3) which are exceptions to the general Rules of levy and collection of duties provided under Rules 96ZO and 96ZP. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
|