TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1966 (7) TMI 18
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2. No. 12888-1/61 dated 12-5-1964. Writ Petition No. 735 of 1964 is by the same partnership for the issue of a writ of Prohibition directing the Assistant Collector to forbear from enforcing the order of detention dated 14-5-1964. Writ Petition No. 3180 of 1965 is by Messrs. Janakiram Mills Limited, Rajapalayam, for the issue of a writ of certiorari for calling for the records of the Collector of Central Excise Madras, C. No. IV/16/49/65-B-2, dated 18-6-1965 confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Integrated Divisional Office, Sivakasi, dated 14-5-1964 in C. No. VIa/10/1/62 (MDU), dated 5-6-1964. Writ Petition No. 3181 of 1965 is by Messrs. Sankara Subbiah & Company for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rlooms, but they did not get the licence renewed as they were not working the powerlooms. As the petitioner intimated to the authorities that they were not working on the powerlooms, they were sealed by the Department. While so, on 1-8-1963 the petitioner sold these 17 powerlooms to one Thangamani Textiles for a sum of Rs. 59,625. The petitioner also wrote to the Department on 13-2-1964 intimating that they had sold the powerlooms and that the seals might be removed. Not getting any reply to this letter the petitioner caused a lawyer's notice dated 29-4-1964 to be sent to the Department asking for the removal of the seals. On 4-5-1964 the Department informed the petitioner that the matter was receiving its attention and was under considerat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ram Mills Limited was ordered under Rule 230 of the Central Excise Rules. 5. The demand for a sum of Rs. 29,212 made on Gopalakrishna and Company, and the sum of Rs. 37,919 made on Balaji & Company is stated to be the amount of short levy made by the Department. According to the Department, one Jethanand Thakurdas was a partner of Gopalakrishna and Company. He was also a partner of Balaji & Company along with others. The levy is stated to be under rule 96 J which provides the rates to be levied per powerloom per shift per month employed by or on behalf of the same person in the manufacture of cotton fabrics. According to the rule, the rate increases if the same person owns more than a particular number of powerlooms. The Department would....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aji & Company. It was also contended that the order of detention of the goods indefinitely was also illegal. As an instance of arbitrariness, the learned Counsel pointed out the petition presented by the petitioner (in W.P. No. 734 of 1964) in 1962 to the department submitting that the transaction which they had entered into with Gopalakrishna and company was not a lease, has not yet been disposed of. Finally, the learned Counsel submitted that the demand on Gopalakrishna & Company and Balaji & Company are themselves illegal and contrary to the Central Excise Rules, and relied on a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 394 of 1962, - Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Customs at Surat and others v. Jayantilal Balub....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is rule. The Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 394 of 1962 had to construe the effect of Rule 12A(v) of the Rules which related to Rayon and which is in pari materia with the present rules. One Shah was carrying on business in the manufacture of silk fabrics. He was owner of 9 powerlooms at Surat. He was also a partner in a firm known as Saurashtra Mills at Surendranagar running 24 looms. In this firm there were 12 partners and Shah had a 2 annas share. Shah was also a partner in another firm, Sunlight Textile Mills in Bhandup. In this partnership, Shah had 8 annas share. According to the Department, the total number of looms run by him, that is, 9, and the powerlooms in the two partnerships, 24 and 19, should be added for the purpose of ar....