Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Punjab Recorders Ltd. vs Collector Of Central Excise on 21 June, 1991 cites

Padmini Products vs Collector Of Central Excise, Bangalore on 18 August, 1989

9. In regard to the question whether having regard to the facts and circumstances of this case it was permissible for the Department to invoke the extended period of five years under the proviso to Section 11A of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944 we find that the appellants' case is that they had not paid duty on the clearances in excess of the exemption limit of Rs. 7.5 lakhs on the bona fide belief that the refuelling pumps manufactured by them were not classifiable under Item 30A of the Central Excise Tariff. They have contended that there can be no finding against them of wilful suppression of facts or mis-statement with the intent of evading duty since even in accordance with the Board's instructions dated 23-4-1969 conveyed to the trade through Patna Collectorate Public Notice dated 28th March, 1969 pumps designed for dispensing fuel were not chargeable to duty under Item 30-A of the Tariff. On the other hand the learned JDR has contended on behalf of the Department that it was permissible for the adjudicating authority to invoke the extended period for the recovery of short levy since the appellants failed to obtain a Central Excise licence and continued to clear their goods without payment of duty even after 1981 when all doubts about the dutiability of power driven pumps designed for handling liquids under Item 30A of the Tariff were put to rest with the issue of Board's Tariff Advice No. 122 dated 10-11-1981. We are, however, not impressed with the arguments of the learned JDR since a tariff advice is a departmental circular issued for the guidance of the officers. It appears that even after the issue of the Tariff Advice there was ample scope for doubt in the mind of the appellants about the dutiability of various types of power operated pumps in view of the circulars issued by the Board & various Collectorates on this subject and on this account they failed to take out a licence and pay the duty. Under these circumstances we are of the view that as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Padmini Products v. Collector of Central Excise [1989(43) ELT195 (SC)] the appellants cannot be accused of wilful mis-statement or suppression of facts with the intent to evade duty. The relevant extracts of the judgment are reproduced below :-
Supreme Court of India Cites 2 - Cited by 173 - S Mukharji - Full Document

Orient Paper Mills Ltd vs Union Of India on 16 March, 1967

8. Coming to the second point, we find that the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India [1978 (2) ELT (J 345)] has laid down that quasi-judicial authorities should not allow their judgments to be influenced by administrative considerations or by the instructions or directions given by their superiors and such directions given by higher authorities, however, high they may be, shall be invalid and will only have the effect of vitiating the quasi-judicial proceedings. We are, therefore, of the view that the instructions issued by the Board and also the Trade Notices issued by certain Central Excise Collectorates on the basis of such instructions stating that fuel dispensing pumps were not to be treated as chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 30-A of the Central Excise Tariff were not binding upon the adjudicating authority who was required to arrive at his own judgment in regard to the classification of the goods, on the basis of the wordings of the relevant item in the tariff. Hence, the answer to the second point is in the negative.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 177 - M Hidayatullah - Full Document
1