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 demand of central excise duty was time-barred, and whether any question of law arose for reference on the basis of the date on which shortage was found in annual stock taking versus the date on which the stock-taking report was completed and accepted by the proper officer.
Analysis: The relevant statutory setting required annual stock taking to be done in the presence of the proper officer, and the shortage became legally relevant only when the report prepared by the assessee was presented and accepted by the proper officer. Mere completion of a physical stock count by the assessee did not, by itself, amount to final ascertainment of deficiency for limitation purposes. On the facts, the stock-taking statement was completed on 31-8-1982 and received by the Superintendent on 1-9-1982, and the notice issued on 22-2-1983 was therefore within time. In these circumstances, the claimed limitation point did not disclose any referable question of law.
Conclusion: The demand was not time-barred, and no question of law requiring reference arose.
Final Conclusion: The application was dismissed after holding that limitation did not defeat the demand and that the matter did not justify reference.
Ratio Decidendi: For limitation under the excise framework governing stock shortages, the relevant date is the point at which the shortage is finally ascertained and accepted by the proper officer, not the mere date of physical stock taking by the assessee.