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 writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy in view of the constitutional right invoked. (ii) Whether the demand for differential excise duty was governed by Rule 10 or Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by the availability of an alternative statutory remedy in view of the constitutional right invoked.
Analysis: The objection to maintainability turned on the scope of the amended Article 226 and the nature of the right asserted. The challenge to the demand notice was treated as a challenge to deprivation of property under Article 31, and the Court held that the existence of an appellate remedy did not bar recourse to writ jurisdiction where enforcement of a right in Part III was involved. The reliance on the appellant's status as a company and on the nature of Article 19 rights was rejected as inapposite to the Article 31 claim.
Conclusion: The writ petition was maintainable and the preliminary objection failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the demand for differential excise duty was governed by Rule 10 or Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944.
Analysis: The disputed demand arose after clearance of goods on the basis of the description furnished in the assessment forms and after a subsequent retest indicated a different tariff classification. The Court construed the expression "mis-statement" in Rule 10 as wide enough to include a false statement and not merely an innocent or bona fide wrong statement. On that construction, the alleged short levy fell within Rule 10 and not Rule 10A. As the demand was issued beyond the prescribed period under Rule 10, it was time-barred.
Conclusion: Rule 10 applied, and the impugned demand was barred by limitation; the decision was against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.
Final Conclusion: The demand notice could not be sustained, and the appeal failed on the merits after rejection of the maintainability objection.
Ratio Decidendi: In excise matters, "mis-statement" in Rule 10 is not confined to an innocent or bona fide error and includes a false statement, so where the alleged short levy falls within that rule the demand must be made within the prescribed limitation period.
TaxTMI 
