Just a moment...

Report
FeedbackReport
Bars
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1980 (4) TMI 116

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as 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 removed or sought to be removed from the fact....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 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 that the aforesaid two demand notices are clea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....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 there is no demand against him made at any time ....