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 Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules was ultra vires the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. (ii) Whether the demand of duty for the period when the goods were not exempt from excise duty could validly be made under Rule 10A.
Issue (i): Whether Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules was ultra vires the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944.
Analysis: The governing provision in Section 3 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944 confers a wider power than the corresponding provision considered in the cited Madras decision. It authorises duties of excise to be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed, thereby permitting rules not merely for collection but also for the manner of levy. Rule 10A, being a residuary provision for recovery of sums due where the rules do not otherwise make specific provision, falls within that statutory ambit. The earlier decision striking down a different rule under a different enactment was held to be distinguishable.
Conclusion: Rule 10A was not ultra vires and remained valid.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand of duty for the period when the goods were not exempt from excise duty could validly be made under Rule 10A.
Analysis: The goods had ceased to enjoy exemption during the relevant period, yet excise duty payable on clearances made in that interval was not credited to the Department. On those admitted facts, the authorities were justified in invoking Rule 10A to recover the legally payable duty. The impugned orders therefore required no interference.
Conclusion: The demand and recovery under Rule 10A were upheld.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition failed and the challenge to the excise demand was rejected.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the parent excise statute empowers rules prescribing the manner of levy and collection of duty, a residuary recovery rule for short-levied or unpaid duty is within the rule-making power and may validly be used to recover duty due for a period when no exemption operated.
TaxTMI 
