Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
- ⚖️ Instantly identify judgments decided in favour of the Assessee, Revenue, or Appellant
- 🔍 Narrow down results with higher precision
Try it now in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New Feature Launched ✕
Just a moment...
Introducing the “In Favour Of” filter in Case Laws.
Try it now in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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 respondents on excise duty liability for crumb rubber, stresses fair opportunity for petitioner</h1> The court directed the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations, emphasizing the need for a speaking order supported by evidence to ... Block or crump rubber — Classification of goods — Burden of proof on the Department - Assessment Issues involved: Determination of liability to Central Excise duty on crump rubber produced in petitioner's factory, failure of respondents to dispose of representations Exts. P3 and P5, jurisdictional fact regarding excise duty liability.Liability to Central Excise Duty: The petitioner, a private limited company, challenged the imposition of Central Excise duty on crump rubber produced in its factory under Tariff Item No. 68. Despite the petitioner's objections and reference to a previous decision, the respondents repeatedly requested details without providing a reasoned decision. The court emphasized the need for a speaking order supported by evidence to establish the liability for excise duty, highlighting the principle of fairness and natural justice in taxation matters.Non-disposal of Representations: The respondents failed to address the petitioner's objections in representations Exts. P3 and P5, continuing to demand information without proper adjudication. The court criticized this approach as unwarranted, stressing the importance of providing a genuine opportunity for the petitioner to present their case and receive a reasoned decision based on facts and law.Jurisdictional Fact: The question of whether crump rubber falls under Central Excise Tariff Item 68 was deemed a jurisdictional fact by the petitioner's counsel. The court refrained from exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the representations, providing a fair opportunity for the petitioner to be heard before making a final determination on the excise duty liability of the crump rubber produced in their factory.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
