SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S. Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpal, J.
UNION OF INDIA, APPELLANT
Versus
BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITED, OTHERS, RESPONDENTS.
Civil Appeals Nos. 5238-5244 of 1997 (Arising out of SLPs Nos. 3894-3900 of 1996), with Nos. 9245, 9360 of 1996,
decided on July 29, 1997.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals by special leave arise out of writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in the High Court for quashing show-cause notices issued to the assessees. The assessee in each of these cases denies its liability to pay the excise duty demanded and instead of replying to the show-cause notices issued by the Assistant Collector, filed the writ petitions which have been allowed. The justification for filing the writ petitions given by learned counsel for the respondents/assessees, is that a trade notice which was issued left no scope with the departmental authorities to accept the assessees contention. In our opinion, this is no ground to justify the filing of writ petitions in any of these cases.
3. It is clear that the question of exigibility to the duty demanded depends on the facts found relating to the process by which the end-product on which duty is demanded came into existence. The items in question are several and in each case a finding has to be given on the facts pertaining to the particular item. This has not been done by any authority in respect of any of these items or goods. There is thus no finding of fact on which the question of exigibility to excise duty on any of the items or goods can be decided. The appropriate course for the assessee in each case was to reply to the show-cause notice enabling the authorities to record their findings of fact in each case and then if necessary, the matter should have been proceeded to the Tribunal and thereafter to this Court. The trade notice was not decisive of the question either before the Tribunal or in this Court.
4. We are satisfied that the question of excise duty which has been raised in these matters can be decided only after recording the findings of fact in each case in respect of goods or items given by the appropriate authority.
5. These matters must, therefore, go back to the Assistant Collector for decision of questions of fact. It would be open to the assessee in each case to submit its reply to the adjudicating authority within four weeks. The adjudicating authority would then proceed to decide the same in accordance with law. The further remedy thereafter would be available to the aggrieved party in accordance with law. These appeals are allowed in the manner indicated above.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.