Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.S.Verma, CJI., B.N. Kirpa, J.
H. M. BAGS MANUFACTURER, APPELLANT
VERSUS
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeals No. 8021 of 1995 with No. 5010 of 1997 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 19363 of 1995), decided on July 22, 1997.
ORDER
1. Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 19363 of 1995.
2. The only contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that a trade notice No. 29 was issued by the Board on 5-11-1992 notifying the re classification and it is this date, i.e., 5-11-1992 which is material and the demand in the present case could not be from any prior date. It is urged that it is the power under Section 37-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act which was exercised in the present case and, therefore, any argument based on Section 11-A is not available to the Revenue. It is submitted that according to the existing practice, any action taken under Section 37-B is duly notified or published and it takes effect from the date of notification or publication. In view of the fact that the notification or publication of the classification made pursuant to the Boards order dated 24-9-1992 was only on 5-11- 1992, the date of issuance of the trade notice, it must be held that the effective date for raising the demand by the Revenue cannot be any date prior to 5-11-1992. This conclusion is reinforced by use of the word "henceforth" by the Board. The Boards order excluded the intention of making the same effective from any earlier date. This submission of learned counsel for the appellant has, therefore, to be accepted.
3. We are informed that the duty has already been paid by the appellant. That being so, the discipline of amended Section 11-B has to be followed for darning the refund and it is for the appellant to show that the duty has not been passed on to the consumers to sustain its claim for refund.
4. Consequently, these appeals are allowed in the above terms and the Tribunals orders are set aside.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
