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 the rate of central excise duty applicable to the goods was to be determined with reference to the date of actual removal from the factory or warehouse, and whether the petitioners could succeed on a new factual plea that recording on pre-recorded cassettes did not amount to manufacture.
Analysis: The duty question was governed by the settled principle that central excise authorities are entitled to apply the rate prevailing on the date of removal of the goods, even if manufacture had been completed when the goods were exempt. The challenge to the departmental orders therefore could not succeed on the rate issue, as those orders followed the same principle. The alternative plea regarding absence of manufacture on the facts of pre-recorded cassettes was not entertained because it had not been raised before the authorities below and would have required factual verification.
Conclusion: The levy was held to be rightly determined with reference to the date of removal, and the writ petition failed.
Final Conclusion: The petitioners obtained no relief, and the departmental orders rejecting the refund claim were left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: For central excise purposes, the applicable rate is the rate in force on the date of actual removal of the goods, and a fresh factual plea requiring verification cannot be introduced for the first time in writ proceedings.