Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.31 seconds)Section 3 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Gursahai Saigal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Punjab on 31 August, 1962
Therefore, the contention of Mr. Daphtary that
the expression "Paid" should be construed as "ought to have
been paid" and even when no duty has been assessed, the
entire duty when subsequently assessed will be a short-levy,
which is also supported by the decision of this Court in
Gursahai Saigal v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Puniab(3) has
to be accepted. It follows that in order to attract rule
10, it is not necessary that some amount of' duty should
have been assessed and that the said amount should have also
been actually paid. That provision will apply even to cases
where there has been a nil assessment in which case the
entire duty later on assessed must be considered to be the
duty
(1) 22 T.C. 15, 16, 17.
Section 37 in The Central Excise Act, 1944 [Entire Act]
Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel And Co vs The Union Of India And Anther on 11 December, 1961
In fact this Court in Chhotabhai
Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. The Union of India and another(1)
specifically rejected the assessees' claim regarding non-
applicability of rule 10A stating that it had been
specifically designed "for the enforcement of a demand like
the one arising in the circumstances of the case". The
decision of this Court is an illustration of certain types
of cases to which rule 10-A will apply.
J.K. Steel Ltd vs Union Of India on 18 October, 1968
No doubt the duty payable under the assessment order was
nil. That, in our opinion, will not bring the case under
sub-rule (2). That sub-rule (2) is a penal provision is
shown from the fact that apart from the duty payable, the
party is also made liable to a penalty and he also incurs
the risk of the goods being confiscated. That rule 9(2)
applies only to cases where there has been an evasion from
payment of duty is clear from the decision of this Court in
J. K. Steel Ltd. v. Union of India(1). Though on certain
other aspects there was a difference of view amongst the
learned Judges, on this aspect the decision is unanimous.
There is absolutely no material placed before us by the
appellants which would justify the issue, of the notice
under rule 9(2).