TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the successor Assistant Collector could reopen and revoke the earlier approval of the classification lists on the basis of the materials placed in the show-cause notice. (ii) Whether the denial of the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 7/80 on the footing that formaldehyde had been bought and brought into the factory was sustainable.
Issue (i): Whether the successor Assistant Collector could reopen and revoke the earlier approval of the classification lists on the basis of the materials placed in the show-cause notice.
Analysis: The earlier approvals of the classification lists were quasi-judicial determinations. While departmental authorities may reopen an earlier decision where fresh facts, a change in law, or previously unconsidered material justify reconsideration, the power cannot be exercised on the basis of an incorrect factual assumption. The reopening in the present case was founded on the mistaken premise that formaldehyde had been purchased from outside and brought into the factory with proforma credit taken on it, whereas the appellants were in fact manufacturing formaldehyde in-house from methanol. The attempted revocation therefore rested on non-facts and did not answer the requirements for a valid review or reopening.
Conclusion: The reopening by the successor Assistant Collector was without proper jurisdiction and could not be sustained.
Issue (ii): Whether the denial of the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 7/80 on the footing that formaldehyde had been bought and brought into the factory was sustainable.
Analysis: The concession under Notification No. 7/80 turned on whether the product was manufactured from raw naphtha or a chemical derived therefrom on which duty had been paid. The evidence showed that the appellants purchased methanol, from which they themselves manufactured formaldehyde in the factory; formaldehyde was not brought in as a purchased input. On that footing, the basic reason given by the lower authorities for denying the exemption was factually wrong. The record also showed that the lower authorities did not properly ascertain the full factual position before proceeding. However, the Tribunal did not finally decide whether the appellants were otherwise entitled to the concession, since another possible factual aspect concerning urea had not been examined below.
Conclusion: The denial of the concession on the stated ground was unsustainable and could not be upheld.
Final Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside because they proceeded on a fundamentally mistaken factual basis and the successor Assistant Collector had no proper jurisdiction to revoke the earlier approval on that footing; the substantive eligibility for the concession was left open.
Ratio Decidendi: An earlier quasi-judicial excise determination may be reopened only on legally cognizable grounds such as fresh facts or an error in the earlier consideration, and not on the basis of an incorrect factual assumption; an order founded on such non-facts is vitiated.
TaxTMI 
