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>Court Upholds Jurisdiction in Excise Duty Case, Emphasizes Finalizing Assessments</h1> <h3>MM RUBBER COMPANY LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA</h3> MM RUBBER COMPANY LIMITED Versus UNION OF INDIA - 2007 (210) E.L.T. 670 (Mad.) Issues involved: The issues involved in the judgment include the jurisdiction of the second respondent u/s 11A of the Central Excise Act, finalization of provisional assessments, validity of the order passed by the third respondent, and the petitioner's approach to the Tribunal.Jurisdiction of Second Respondent u/s 11A:The petitioner contended that the second respondent lacked jurisdiction to invoke Section 11A for levy of excise duty as the assessments were provisional. The order passed by the second respondent was challenged as being without jurisdiction, considering the assessments were provisional and not final.Finalization of Provisional Assessments:The respondent argued that finalization of provisional assessments by the Assistant Commissioner in 1989 was unrelated to the impugned demand notice regarding undervaluation of excisable goods. The respondent emphasized that the petitioner, by submitting to the jurisdiction of the second respondent and appealing to the third respondent, cannot now question the jurisdiction of the second respondent through a writ petition.Validity of Order by Third Respondent:The order of the third respondent rejecting the plea that the assessments were provisional was put in issue. The Tribunal's order, dated 26-12-1997, was considered as an expression of opinion by the members, pending an enforceable final order. The petitioner's actions in stalling the Tribunal from passing an enforceable order were noted, leading to the dismissal of the writ petitions and a direction for the Tribunal to pass orders expeditiously.Petitioner's Approach to the Tribunal:The petitioner's approach to the Tribunal, filing appeals and additional grounds, was scrutinized. The Court highlighted that the matter had been pending for nearly a decade due to the writ petitions, emphasizing the importance of allowing the Tribunal to proceed and pass orders without hindrance.This judgment addresses the jurisdictional aspects of excise duty assessments, the role of the Tribunal in finalizing orders, and the petitioner's conduct in approaching the legal process.
TaxTMI 