TMI Blog1980 (4) TMI 116X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tured by the Petitioners and the rate was 25 per cent ad valorem. A declaration was made under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. Accordingly the new rate prescribed in respect of the said item came into effect from midnight between 29th February 1978 and 1st March, 1968. As required the petitioners declared to the Excise Officer concerned the stock of manufactured goods lying in the factory at that time which consisted of 5510 rolls of the material measuring 1,32,989 linar metres and cut pieces weighing 4,519.75 kgs. 2. The Inspector of Central Excise concerned, issued a demand notice dated 19th March, 1968 calling upon the petitioner to pay duty on the said goods in the sum of Rs. 39,617.00. Even before the goods were remov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... continued till about December 1974. In the meantime, in respect of some other goods demand notice were issued on the basis of change in approved price list and the said notices were sought to be challenged by the petitioner by Writ Petition in this Court, which was rejected in limine. The 2nd respondent sought to connect the demand notices herein with the said demand notices alleging that the issues involved in all the demand notices were common and called upon the petitioner by his letter dated 10th December 1974 to pay the amount covered by the demand notices which are the subject matter of this petition. The correspondence, thereafter ensued and the present petition came to be filed. 5. Mr. Phadnis for the petitioners has contended tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. It is therefore clear that no demand for payment of duty can be made before the goods are removed or sought to be removed. It is also clear that the rate applicable is the rate prevailing at the time of removal. In view of this position the demand notices are clearly bad. 7. Mr. Manjarekar on behalf of the respondents, however, contended that it is admitted by the petitioner that the said goods are liable to duty under Item 22B and the said duty was payable at the time of removal. He further contends that in view of this admission the demand notice cannot be set aside or struck down but the petitioner should be made to pay duty in accordance with the rates prescribed against Item No. 22B. To this contention Mr. Phadnis replied that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . of India Ltd., A.I.R. 1972 S.C. 2563, Mr. Manjarekar contends that the determination of duty as nil was done without the judicial application of mind and therefore the assessment is null and void. Prima facie I am not inclined to accept the contention. I do not propose to go into the same as I have held the impugned demand notice as invalid on other grounds. In the circumstances, the said demand notices are set aside and the respondents are directed not to enforce the same as threatened in the letter dated 25th June 1976. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly. Respondents to pay the costs of the petition to the petitioners. The petitioners to be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposit and accrued interest if any. The Prothonotary and Se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
