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>Writ petition dismissed due to adequate remedy under Act & upheld levy of excise duty</h1> <h3>KARNATAKA CEMENT PIPE FACTORY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER</h3> KARNATAKA CEMENT PIPE FACTORY INDUSTRIAL ESTATE Versus SUPERINTENDENT OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND ANOTHER - 1986 (23) E.L.T. 313 (Kar.) Issues Involved:1. Adequate remedy under the Act.2. Applicability of Notification No. 54/1975 and Notification No. 176/1977.3. Definition and interpretation of 'excisable goods'.Summary:1. Adequate Remedy under the Act:The court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioner had an adequate remedy under the Act. However, since Rule Nisi was issued, the matter was disposed of on its merits.2. Applicability of Notification No. 54/1975 and Notification No. 176/1977:The petitioner, a registered partnership concern with factories in Goa and Hubli, challenged a show-cause notice proposing to club clearances from both factories for excise duty purposes. Notification No. 54/1975 exempted goods from factories with less than 49 workers from excise duty. The Goa factory met this criterion, while the Hubli factory did not. Notification No. 176/1977 changed the exemption criteria to capital investment and total value of clearances, proposing to levy duty if the total value exceeded Rs. 30 lakhs. The petitioner argued that the Goa factory's clearances were exempt under Notification No. 54/1975 and should not be clubbed with the Hubli factory's clearances.3. Definition and Interpretation of 'Excisable Goods':The court examined whether goods exempted under Notification No. 54/1975 ceased to be 'excisable goods' for the purpose of Notification No. 176/1977. The petitioner cited Supreme Court decisions in Kailash Nath v. State of U.P. and J.K. Steels Ltd. v. Union of India, arguing that exempted goods should not be considered 'excisable goods'. The respondent argued that 'excisable goods' remain so despite exemptions and cited decisions from various High Courts supporting this view. The court agreed with the respondent, stating that 'excisable goods' do not become non-excisable due to exemptions and upheld the proposed levy of excise duty.Conclusion:The court concluded that the goods produced by the petitioner in its Goa unit did not cease to be 'excisable goods' for the purpose of applying Notification No. 176/1977. The writ petition was dismissed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
