Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

1972 (3) TMI 85

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....er the Madras Denatured Spirit (Methyl) Alcohol and Varnish (French Polish) Rules, 1959. They have been served with demands for payment of basic excise duty as well as special excise duty amounting to ₹ 3,736.44 and ₹ 4,773.12 for the period 6-7-1963 to 26-6-1966 respectively by the Range Officer, Kanchipurm. The petitioners approached the Assistant Collector of Central Excise question....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... till the year 1965 they neither took out a licence to manufacture French Polish under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 nor did they pay any duty of excise on their manufacture. Only in the year 1965 the Excise authorities informed the petitioners that they are to take out licences under the Central Excises and Salt Act for the manufacture of French Polish which comes under the entry `Varnis....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sued under Rule 10A of the Central Excise Rules which is ultra vires. Secondly it is contended that the demands cannot also be brought under Rule 9(2) as suggested by the respondents. Thirdly it is contended that the Notification Nos. 137/60-C.E., dated 1-10-1960 and 109 of 1963, dated 6-7-1963 have not been properly construed by the Excise Authorities and that on a proper interpretation of the tw....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... not dispute the position that the principle of the above decision will equally apply to Rule 10A. He, therefore, states that he will not be able to sustain the demands impugned in these writ petitions under Rule 10A in view of the decision in W.P. No. 1053 of 1968 etc. W.P. No. 1053/68- Citadel Pharmaceuticals, Madras v. D.R.O. Chingleput and 2 others, but that he would sustain the same under Rul....