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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for computation of duty liability under the self-removal procedure, three varieties of plywood bearing different rates of central excise duty could be clubbed together for determining the relevant period and average value, or had to be treated separately.
Analysis: The Government held that two varieties of plywood fell under one sub-item of Item 16B of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, while the third fell under another sub-item, and that the three varieties attracted different rates of duty. On the wording of Rule 173RB(2), the duty liability was required to be worked out by applying each relevant rate to the average annual quantity or value of the goods to which that rate applied. The expression referring to "such rate" and "such goods" showed that goods carrying different rates of duty could not be aggregated for a common computation.
Conclusion: The contention that all three varieties should be clubbed together was rejected, and separate computation of duty liability for goods bearing different rates of duty was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: Where goods are classifiable under different tariff items or sub-items and attract different rates of excise duty, the duty liability under the prescribed computation rule must be determined separately for each class of goods and then aggregated.