TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the excise demand could be sustained under rule 10-A or rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944; (ii) Whether the transferee of the factory was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 131 of 1962 dated 13th June, 1962.
Issue (i): Whether the excise demand could be sustained under rule 10-A or rule 9(2) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944
Analysis: The demand was initially made under rule 10-A. The rule could not be relied on because the Court had already held, in a similar context, that an analogous provision lacked statutory backing. The department then sought to support the demand under rule 9(2), but the goods had been cleared with the knowledge of the excise authorities after an earlier levy, and rule 9(2) could not be invoked in those circumstances.
Conclusion: The demand could not be sustained under either rule 10-A or rule 9(2), and was invalid.
Issue (ii): Whether the transferee of the factory was entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 131 of 1962 dated 13th June, 1962
Analysis: The licence under the excise rules was personal to the grantee and not transferable. The petitioners applied for a fresh licence only on 16th October, 1963, well after the cut-off date in the notification. As transferees, they could only be treated as new licensees for the purpose of the second proviso to the notification, and therefore could not claim the exemption.
Conclusion: The petitioners were not entitled to the exemption under Notification No. 131 of 1962.
Final Conclusion: The excise demand failed, and the writ petition succeeded, although the exemption claim was rejected on merits.
Ratio Decidendi: A demand under the excise rules cannot be upheld under a provision that lacks statutory support or under a collection rule that is inapplicable on the facts, and a statutory exemption confined to persons applying for licence by a specified date does not extend to transferees whose licences are personal and non-transferable.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
