Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.31 seconds)
Shree Synthetics Limited vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 16 January, 1982 cites

Shinde Brothers vs Dy. Commissioner Raichur & Ors on 26 September, 1966

In Shinde Brothers v. Dy. Commr, Raichur- AIR 1967 SC 1512, the Supreme Court reiterated the characteristics of excise duty. It was pointed out that duty of excise is clearly related to production or manufacture of goods but it does not matter if the levy is made not at the moment of production or manufacture but at a later stage and that if the duty is collected from a retailer it would not necessarily cease to be an excise duty. These authorities clearly establish that although a duty of excise is a tax on manufacture or production of goods, it need not necessarily be levied at the stage of manufacture or production and may be levied at a later stage and may even be collected from a retailer. It is in the light of these principles that Section 3 of the Act has to be construed. This Section imposes excise duty "on all excisable goods-which are produced or manufactured in India." The Section further imposes this duty "at the rates set forth in the First Schedule." The manner or levy and collection of the duty is, however, left to be prescribed by rules. This is the effect of the words-"there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed"-as they occur in Section 3. We are unable to agree that the qualifying words "in such manner as may be prescribed" qualify only "collected" and not "levied". "Levy" is a word of very wide import. The term "imposition" is narrower and is generally used for the levy of a tax or duty by legislative provisions indicating the subject matter of the tax and the rate at which it has to be taxed. The term "levy" is, however, wider and includes imposition and all stages upto assessment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Assistant Collector Of Central ... vs National Tobacco Co. Of India Ltd on 9 August, 1972

It, however, does not include collection which is separately referred to in Section 3 of the Act [see Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta v. National Tobacco Co. of India Ltd.-MR 1972 S.C.2563 at p.2571]. Section 3 of the Act imposes the duty at the rates set forth in the Schedule,on all excisable goods produced or manufactured in India. It does not lay down the stage at which the duty is to attach or the date with reference to which the rate has to be applied. It is not possible to accept the argument that Section 3 impliedly applies the rates of duty as in force on the date of manufacture or production for the reason that though excise duty is a tax on manufacture or production it need not necessarily be levied at the stage of manufacture or production and it may even be levied at the stage the excisable article reaches the retailer. This inference is further supported from Section 4 of the Act which deals with determination of value for purposes of duty. The material point of time with reference to which the value is determined under that Section is the time of removal of the article chargeable with duty from the factory and not the time when it is manufactured or produced. As Section 3 or any other provision of the Act does not expressly or impliedly lay down that excise duty must be levied at the rate prevailing on the date of manufacture or production, it was open to the Central Government to make rules for fixing the time with reference to which the rate of duty must be applied. Rule 9-A(l)(ii) which applies the rate prevailing on the date of actual removal of the goods from the factory or warehouse is valid under Section 37(1) as it carries out the purpose of the Act by prescribing the manner of levy of duty under Section 3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 342 - M H Beg - Full Document
1   2 Next