TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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>Petitioner wins challenge against discriminatory treatment under Central Excise Rules</h1> <h3>ARUN HOSIERY MILLS Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> The Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the demand notice dated 29th August, 1983. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing electronics ... Writ - Laches Issues:Quashing of demand show cause notice, order of the Assistant Collector, and demand notice.Analysis:The petitioner sought the quashing of a demand show cause notice, an order by the Assistant Collector, and a demand notice. The petitioner, engaged in manufacturing electronics equipment for defense, was also manufacturing record players and parts between 1970 and 1972. The record players were exempt from excise duty under Notification No. 145 of 1963 if assembled with duty-paid components. The petitioner removed the record players following due procedure and maintained necessary records. Despite a demand show cause notice issued in 1973, the petitioner believed in good faith that the record players were exempt from excise duty.The Assistant Collector held in 1974 that the record players were not exempt, leading to representations by the petitioner citing exemption under Notification No. 145/63. Subsequent representations were made to the Central Board of Excise and Customs, highlighting the exemption coverage for various types of gramophones. In 1975, the Board rescinded the notification, making record players liable for full duty. However, the Government of India in 1978 ruled that sound reproducers were excisable as gramophones under Entry 37A and exempt under Notification 145/63, leading to dropped demands for other manufacturers.The petitioner requested the dropping of the demand in 1982, but received a notice in 1983 demanding payment. The petitioner argued against the application of Rule 9(2) and Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules, claiming discriminatory treatment compared to other manufacturers. The Court found the petition timely and ruled in favor of the petitioner, quashing the demand notice dated 29th August, 1983. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the same relief as other manufacturers, emphasizing non-discrimination and adherence to the government's ruling.In conclusion, the Court allowed the petition, quashing the demand notice and making the rule absolute, without any order as to costs.
TaxTMI 
