9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (9) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ated to the recovery of the amount as excise duty payable under entry No. 18-A to the Schedule of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, for the period between 1-3-61 and 8-5-61 on folded yarn on hanks. The duty was leviable under entry 18-A which was newly added in the Schedule to the Act and the duty was leviable for the first time with effect from 1st March 1961. Doubts were expressed as to the interpretation of the-language used in the entry with particular reference to the levy of excise duty on yarn of certain kinds on hanks. A reference was made to the Collector of Central Excise, Baroda, seeking clarification by the Federation of Gujarat Mills and Industries and a reply was received that a folded yarn up to the count of 405 was tota ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t would not interfere and set aside the order. The learned District Judge thus allowed the appeal before him and set aside the decree of the trial court. It is against this decision that this second appeal is directed. Mr. K. S. Nanavaty, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant plaintiff, has not disputed the aforesaid proposition of law laid down by this court in 6 G.L.R. 137. His only contention is that the finding of the learned District Judge that the duty has escaped payment due to error of misconception or exemption notification is not supported by any evidence inasmuch as the Inspector who had been alleged to have committed the error is not examined. There is no merit in this contention. The learned District Judge has o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had the jurisdiction to pass it. It was only a mere wrong reference of the power under which the action is taken by the officer which was in challenge. But, this would not vitiate the action done if it can be justified under some other power that the action can lawfully be taken. In the instant case, the duty could have been demanded from the plaintiff under Rule 10. If the sector officer could justify the demand legally, then a wrong reference would not invalidate the notice. The demand notice has thus been held to be not illegal or invalid. The notice was not attacked on any other ground on behalf of the present appellant in the trial court. Mr. Nanavaty's contention in this behalf cannot thus be accepted. 3. In the result, the appeal f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
