Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 362 (2.21 seconds)
Documents citing Assistant Collector Of Central ... vs National Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd on 9 August, 1972

Balaji Paper Boards (P) Ltd. And Premier ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 8 October, 1998

Various provisions in the Act and in the Rules regarding recovery proceedings have to be read together. Section 11A starts with the stage when any duty of excise has not been levied or paid or has been short levied or short paid. It does not provide for the levy, payment and collection of duty. It does not provide for assessment which determines whether the levy is short or complete. Assessment is the actual procedure adopted in fixing the liability to pay the duty in respect of particular goods and by particular person or persons, as well as for determining the amount to be paid [(refer paras-20 and 21 of Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. .] Under that judgment, the Supreme Court had clearly brought out that the procedure under the earlier Rule 10 presupposed an assessment (para 19). It is the process of assessment that really determines whether the levy is short or complete (para 21). Both the Rules 10 and 10A as they stood at the relevant time dealt with collection and not with assessment (para 23).
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 154 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Herschel Rubber (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 5 March, 1987

(i) Rule 10-A on which reliance was placed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 1985(20) ELT 416 (Asstt. Collector v. National Tobacco), 1985(20) ELT 212 (= AIR 1985 S.C. 537 -D.R. Kohli v. Atul Products), and 1986(25) ELT 3 (Andhra Re-rolling Mills v. Union of India) was repealed and not re-enacted by Notification No. 267/77 on 6-8-1977. No Rule corresponding to Rule 10-A was to be found in Rules 10 and 11 brought into force by virtue of the aforesaid notifications,
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

J.K. Cotton Spinning And Weaving Mills ... vs Collector Of Central Excise on 31 January, 1989

24. Shri Naik cited para 9 of the Supreme Court's judgment in Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. (1978 ELT J 416 : ECR C 398) holding that even if there was no formal provisional assessment, Rule 10A could be resorted to for recovery of duty. By analogy, the provisions of Section 11A of the Central Excises Act could also be invoked. This would be so in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case. Though there was no formal order of provisional assessment, the Department was competent to reopen and complete assessments in view of the peculiar circumstances of the present case, especially in view of the first show cause notices, stay order passed by the High Court, the subsequent amendments to Rules 9 and 49 and the Supreme Court's judgment.
Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Delhi Cites 63 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Sindhi Sahiti Multi Purpose And ... vs State Of Madhya Pradesh And Anr. on 15 April, 1994

The rule of construction that, where a mode of performing a duty is laid down by law it must be performed in that mode or not at all, is subservient to the basic principle that Courts must endeavour to ascertain the legislative intent and purpose, and then adopt a rule of construction which effectuates rather than one that may defeat these. Moreover, the rule of prohibition by necessary implication could be applied only where specified procedure is laid down for the performance of a duty".
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 18 - Full Document

Peekay Re-Rolling Mills (P) Ltd. vs Assistant Commissioner (Assessment) on 7 April, 2006

6. The decision of the Apex Court in Assistant Collector of Central Excise. Calcutta v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. is an authority for the proposition that the word "levy wide as it is, comprehending imposition of tax and assessment, it does not embrace within its scope collection of tax. But, it is to be seen that the Court was considering Article 265 of the Constitution which provides that no tax shall be levied and collected except by the authority of a law made by the State. It is to be noted that the very same pattern of phraseology as is found in Article 265 differentiating levy and collection is to be found in Articles 268, 269, 270 and 272. But, we find that Article 277 only uses the word "levy". Article 277 reads as follows:
Kerala High Court Cites 41 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Maharaja Shree Umaid Mills Ltd. vs Union Of India (Uoi) on 7 July, 1980

In Assistant Collector of Central Excise v. National Tobacco Co. of India,6 while dealing with the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as they stood before August 1, 1959, with particular reference to the terms "levy" and "assessment", the Supreme Court hold that Rule 52 shows that an assessment is obligatory before every removal of manufactured goods but the rules however neither specify the kind of notice which should precede assessment nor lay down the need to pass an assessment order. The Supreme Court observed as follows :-
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 77 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mafatlal Industries Ltd. And Ors. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 19 December, 1996

146. The duty impose on and collected from manufacturer, if it is found to be in excess of the charge imposed by Section 3, has to be returned to manufacturer and nobody else, otherwise charging provision, rules for computation of charge and imposition and collection of duty will become meaningless. If any amount has been realised by the Excise Officer in excess of the charge imposed by the charging section, then such collection is beyond the competence of the Act and also violates Article 265 of the Constitution. It was pointed out in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Division v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd. , that Article 265 of the Constitution makes a distinction between levy and collection. Levy may include both imposition of a tax as well as assessment. 'Collection' will be recovery of tax. If it is found that a tax-payer has been levied more than the permissible limit imposed by the charging section read with Excise Tariff Act and the Rules, the levy is bad. The Collection pursuant to this levy is equally bad. Such levy and collection are dehors the provisions of the Excise Act. There is no way that the Central Excise Authority can retain the amount or use the amount. In any way it has to refund the amount to the person from whom it has been unlawfully collected by the Excise Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 160 - Cited by 1694 - B P Reddy - Full Document

WP(C)/4359/2019 on 31 August, 2024

In Assistant Collector General, Kolkata Division Vs. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd, reported in (1972) 2 SCC 560, the Apex Court observed that a mechanical adjustment and ostensible settlement of accounts, by making debit entries, was undertaken by the Department. But that could not be equated with an assessment which is a quasi-judicial process which involves due application of mind to the facts as well as to the requirements of law. an accordingly it held that unless the Court is bound by law to give such an unusual interpretation to the term "assessment", it do not find any such definition of assessment or any compelling reason to hold that what could at most be a mechanical provisional collection, which would become a "levy" in the eye of law only after an "assessment", was itself a levy or an "assessment".
Gauhati High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 0 - S Saikia - Full Document

Mafatalal Industries Ltd. Etc. Etc vs Union Of India Etc. Etc on 19 December, 1996

146. The duty impose on and collected from manufacturer, if it is found to be in excess of the charge imposed by Section 3, has to be returned to manufacturer and nobody else, otherwise charging provision, rules for computation of charge and imposition and collection of duty will become meaningless. If any amount has been realised by the Excise Officer in excess of the charge imposed by the charging section, then such collection is beyond the competence of the Act and also violates Article 265 of the Constitution. It was pointed out in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Division v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd., that Article 265 of the Constitution makes a distinction between levy and collection. Levy may include both imposition of a tax as well as assessment. 'Collection' will be recovery of tax. If it is found that a tax-payer has been levied more than the permissible limit imposed by the charging section read with Excise Tariff Act and the Rules, the levy is bad. The Collection pursuant to this levy is equally bad. Such levy and collection are dehors the provisions of the Excise Act. There is no way that the Central Excise Authority can retain the amount or use the amount. In any way it has to refund the amount to the person from whom it has been unlawfully collected by the Excise Officer.
Supreme Court of India Cites 190 - Cited by 3 - A M Ahmadi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next