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 Collector's withdrawal of the relaxation permitting invoice value assessment under Rule 173C(11) and direction to file price lists in the normal form called for appellate interference.
Analysis: The relaxation under Rule 173C(11) is a discretionary facility available only in suitable cases. The provision does not make frequent fluctuation of market price a sine qua non for grant of the relaxation, and the Collector may withdraw the facility if the case does not satisfy the rule. The decision challenged was treated as a procedural matter and not as an order imposing duty demand, penalty, or fine. The proviso to the rule also preserves the power to enquire further and determine value under Section 4, so the relaxation cannot be used to bypass the normal valuation regime. Since the Collector's discretion was exercised under the rule and no clear legal infirmity was shown, interference was not warranted.
Conclusion: The withdrawal of the relaxation under Rule 173C(11) was upheld and the appeal failed.
Ratio Decidendi: A discretionary relaxation in the valuation procedure under Rule 173C(11) may be granted or withdrawn by the Collector in suitable cases, and an appellate forum will not interfere absent a clear legal infirmity in that exercise of discretion.