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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether, for the purpose of the impugned excise notification, the factory's two working shifts were to be treated as a third shift merely because each shift included the half-hour rest interval required by labour law, so as to sustain the demand notices.
Analysis: The notification defined a shift as eight hours' duration, irrespective of whether the machine worked for the full period. The Court construed that expression reasonably and in the light of the mandatory rest interval under the Factories Act. The half-hour interval could not be counted as extra working time so as to convert two shifts into three. Since the department's view proceeded on an unreasonable calculation of working hours, the demand notices founded on a supposed third shift could not stand.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the assessee. The factory was held not to have worked a third shift within the meaning of the notification, and the impugned demands were unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded and the excise demands, together with the appellate and revisional orders based on the third-shift theory, were quashed.
Ratio Decidendi: A taxing notification defining "shift" must be construed reasonably, and a mandatory rest interval required by labour law cannot be treated as additional working time so as to enlarge the number of shifts and attract a higher duty levy.