PERFECT DROP PINS MFG. CO. Vs. COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE
CUSTOMS EXCISE AND GOLD(CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The present Rule was issued on 18.11.1980 at the instance of the writ petitioner Trade Links Private Limited, a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and the petitioner No. 2 as the Depot Manager of the petitioner praying, inter alia, for an appropriate writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to withdraw, cancel and/or set aside the purported explanation to the notification dated March 20, 1980, the notices dated April 9, 1980, April 29, 1980, May 28, 1980 and October 28, 1980 and for declaration that no duty is payable in respect of the stcok of I.M.F.L. and Beer lying with the petitioner as on April 1980 and other consequential reliefs by way of restraining the respondents from levying and/or collecting and duty under the Bengal Excise Act, 1909 on the stock of T.M.F.I. and Beer.
(2.) It is stated in detail that the petitioner No. 1 Company received a purported notice from the Collector of Excise, Calcutta, whereby the petitioner company was directed to pay a sum of Rs. l,69,335.47p., being the difference of the duty alleged to be payable on the penal stock of I.M.F.L. as on April 1, 1980. It is alleged that the said notice further demanded duty on any left out quantity of I.M.F.L. on which difference of duty is payable and has not been included in the original claim. The petitioner No. 1 is alleged to have received a further notice dated April 29, 1980 by which the respondent No. 1 asked the petitioner No. 1 to appear before him in his office and in reply thereto. The petitioner No. 1 has informed that the demand raised in the aforesaid Memo is hit by the ruling of the Supreme Court of India in the case of M/s. Mohan Meaking Breweries Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Excise, Bihar and Ors., reported in . Thereafter, another letter dated May 28, 1980 has been received by the petitioner No. 1 informing it, inter alia, that the said demand was in accordance with law and the petitioner was asked to pay the dues within three days from the date of receipt of the notice. Consequently, the petitioners being aggrieved thereby have come to this Court to seek the reliefs as indicated above on the ground that the explanation in the said purported notification and the purported notices seeking to recover higher rate of duty on the stock of I.M.F.L. and Beer from the petitioners is without jurisdiction and/or is in excess of jurisdiction and/or authority of law.
(3.) Mr. Dhar, learned Advocate for the writ petitioners has submitted that the Act authorises the State Government to impose duty at such rate or rates on any excisable article imported or exported or transported and/or manufactured and a licence is required to pay appropriate duty on excisable articles on the date of manufacture or import or export or transport thereof. The purported Explanation seeking to recover higher rate of duty on the stock of I.M.F.L. and Beer which have been removed after payment of proper duty thereon is illegal and without authority of law.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.