Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →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 Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, as it stood at the relevant time, was ultra vires the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and incapable of supporting a demand for excise duty short-levied or not levied.
Analysis: Rule 10A was a residuary machinery provision for recovery of sums due to the Government where no specific rule covered the collection of duty or deficiency in duty. The Act, particularly Section 3 read with Section 37, empowered the levy and collection of excise duty and authorised rules to carry out the purposes of the Act. The Court distinguished cases under statutes whose charging provisions were narrower and noted that prior decisions had treated Rule 10A as applicable in appropriate cases without doubting its validity. Applying the settled principle that delegated legislation is invalid only if it exceeds the enabling power, the Court held that Rule 10A fell within the scope of the rule-making power under the Act.
Conclusion: Rule 10A was valid and not ultra vires. The demand notices issued under it could not be struck down on that ground.
Ratio Decidendi: A residuary rule for recovery of excise duty short-levied or not levied is valid if it is traceable to the Act's general rule-making power and the statutory scheme governing levy and collection of duty.