TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the petitioner was liable to pay excise duty on the basis that his individual powerlooms and his interest in the partnership powerlooms together exceeded the prescribed limit; (ii) Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the statutory remedy of appeal and revision under the excise law.
Issue (i): Whether the petitioner was liable to pay excise duty on the basis that his individual powerlooms and his interest in the partnership powerlooms together exceeded the prescribed limit.
Analysis: The applicable notification fixed a lower duty for not more than four powerlooms and a higher duty where more than four powerlooms were installed. The petitioner owned four powerlooms individually and was also a partner in a firm having powerlooms in the same premises. The Court rejected the contention that the partnership property could be treated as a juristic person immune from consideration of the petitioner's interest. On the materials stated, the petitioner's individual holdings together with his share in the firm could justify treatment as owning more than four powerlooms. As regards the firm, the question whether it had four or eight powerlooms was treated as a factual matter affecting the duty payable.
Conclusion: The petitioner failed to establish that the excise demand was unsustainable on merits.
Issue (ii): Whether the writ petition should be entertained despite the statutory remedy of appeal and revision under the excise law.
Analysis: The petitioner had not availed the remedy of appeal and thereafter revision provided under the excise statute before invoking writ jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in view of the available alternate statutory remedy.
Final Conclusion: The challenge to the excise demand failed both on merits and on account of non-exhaustion of the statutory appellate and revisional remedies, and the writ petition stood rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an assessee has an effective statutory remedy of appeal and revision, writ jurisdiction will ordinarily not be invoked, and for excise duty purposes the assessee's individual and partnership interest may be aggregated where the factual basis for the levy so requires.
TaxTMI 
