TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand of central excise duty was validly confirmed in accordance with the procedure prescribed after the amendment to section 11A, and whether the impugned order could be sustained when the notice and subsequent confirmation were not properly issued.
Analysis: The demand was first introduced by a corrigendum issued after the amendment to section 11A, and part of the demand related to the extended period. The record did not show any proper invocation of the extended-period machinery by the competent authority, nor a valid subsisting notice supporting confirmation even for the normal period. The earlier order had been set aside with a direction to send the records to the Collector for such action as he deemed fit, but the subsequent proceedings did not amount to proper compliance with that direction. In these circumstances, the confirmation of duty was held to suffer from improper procedure.
Conclusion: The demand was not validly confirmed and the impugned order-in-original was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded on the ground of defective procedure in confirming the duty demand, without any adjudication on the classification merits.
Ratio Decidendi: A duty demand cannot be sustained unless it is confirmed through valid statutory procedure by the competent authority and on the basis of a subsisting notice supporting the demand.
TaxTMI 
