TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court directs Industrial Unit assessment per Supreme Court directive, clarifies excise duty payment methods, emphasizes compliance.</h1> <h3>M/s. Jai Hind Wire Rod Mills Ltd, Rep by its Director, G.E. govindaraj Versus The Commissioner of Central Excise</h3> The Court directed the respondents to finalize the assessment of the petitioner - an Industrial Unit, in accordance with the Supreme Court's directive. ... Finalisation of assessment of petitioner - direction to respondent to finalise the assessment of the petitioner-Industrial Unit as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its decision UNION OF INDIA VERSUS SUPREME STEELS AND GENERAL MILLS [2001 (10) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT] with consequential relief of refund with interest. HELD THAT:- The respondents may pass appropriate order in terms of the above ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court within a period of 3 months from the receipt of this order and finalize the pending proceedings in accordance with law - Petition disposed off. Issues:1. Finalization of assessment of the petitioner - Industrial Unit as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.2. Refund of a specific amount with interest based on the Supreme Court's decision.Analysis:1. The Writ Petition was filed to direct the respondent to finalize the assessment of the petitioner - an Industrial Unit, in accordance with the Hon'ble Supreme Court's directive. The Supreme Court's decision in Union of India Vs. Supreme Steels and General Mills 2001 (133) E.L.T. 513 (S.C) was referenced, highlighting the issue related to Rule 96Z0. The contention was regarding the manufacturer's option to pay excise duty based on total furnace capacity or actual production basis under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, 1944. The Court emphasized that once a manufacturer opts for one method, they cannot claim the benefit of the other method. This principle was affirmed based on a previous decision reported in JT2000 (4) SC 77. The Court clarified that the procedures under the Act and the Rules are alternative, and the assessee must choose one method.2. The Court directed the respondents to pass an appropriate order within three months based on the Supreme Court's ratio and finalize the pending proceedings in accordance with the law. The Writ Petition was disposed of with this direction, indicating that all cases in the bunch stand finally settled. The judgment emphasized the clarity on the choice between payment methods and the inability to switch between them once an option is selected. The decision provided a clear directive for the assessment and refund process, ensuring compliance with the Supreme Court's ruling and legal procedures.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
