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 period of debarment from the concessional excise duty scheme imposed under Rule 92E(iii) was so disproportionate to the revenue loss as to warrant interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The period of debarment under Rule 92E(iii) was left to the discretion of the authorities, subject to the requirement that the disqualification should not be out of all proportion to the injury caused to the Revenue. The Court held that the period need not be mathematically correlated to the exact revenue loss, since the rule also serves a deterrent purpose to prevent repeated breaches. On the facts, the difference between the estimated and eventual revenue figures did not establish arbitrariness in the exercise of discretion.
Conclusion: The debarment was not shown to be arbitrary or disproportionate, and interference was not warranted under Article 136.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a fiscal penalty or debarment under a discretionary excise provision is imposed to protect revenue and deter repeat defaults, the Court will not interfere merely because the period is not arithmetically equal to the assessed revenue loss, unless the decision is arbitrary or plainly disproportionate.