1989 (7) TMI 100 - SUPREME COURT

Whether Rule 12 of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparations (Excise Duties) Rules, 1956 is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it does not provide for any period of limitation for the recovery of duty?

Held that:- No substance in the submission is found. While it is true that Rule 12 does not prescribe any period within which recovery of any duty as contemplated by the Rule is to be made, but that by itself does not render the Rule unreasonable or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In the absence of any period of limitation it is settled that every authority is to exercise the power within a reasonable period. What would be reasonable period, would depend upon the facts of each case. Whenever a question regarding the inordinate delay in issuance of notice of demand is raised, it would be open to the assessee to contend that it is bad on the ground of delay and it will be for the relevant officer to consider the question whether in the facts and circumstances of the case notice or demand for recovery was made within reasonable period. No hard and fast rules can be laid down in this regard as the determination of the question will depend upon the facts of each case. Appeal allowed.