ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus RAMAKRISHNAN KULWANT RAI

ASSISTANT COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE versus RAMAKRISHNAN KULWANT RAI

The Court held that Rule 10-A, as it existed at the relevant time, was valid and not ultra vires the rule-making power under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944; Rule 10-A is a residuary provision applicable where no specific provision for collection exists in the Rules and can apply even where there had been no prior assessment, and therefore demand notices lawfully issued under Rule 10-A could not be struck down on the ground of the Rule's invalidity.

Parties
Appellant: Assistant Collector of Central Excise; Respondent: M/s. Ramakrishnan Kulwant Rai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
12 April 1989
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No. 1202 of 1974 (appeal by Special Leave) / Appeal From Madras High Court Judgment Dated 19 7 1972; Decision on Appeal Remanding the Case to High Court for Disposal in Accordance With Law
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law
Legal Topics
Rule 10 a of Central Excise Rules, 1944, Validity of Rule Making Power, Recovery of Short Levied/escaped Excise Duty, Ultra Vires Challenge, Residuary Provision for Collection of Duty
Central Excise Tax Law Administrative Law Delegated Legislation Rule 10 a of Central Excise Rules, 1944 Validity of Rule Making Power Recovery of Short Levied/escaped Excise Duty Ultra Vires Challenge +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Assistant Collector of Central Excise

Appellant

M/s. Ramakrishnan Kulwant Rai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No. 1202 of 1974 (appeal by Special Leave) / Appeal From Madras High Court Judgment Dated 19 7 1972; Decision on Appeal Remanding the Case to High Court for Disposal in Accordance With Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 10-A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 as it stood at the relevant time was valid and intra vires the rule-making power under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944
  2. 2 Whether Rule 10-A applies in cases where there had been no prior levy/assessment of excise duty in respect of the articles manufactured
  3. 3 Whether a demand made under Rule 10-A could be sustained or was time-barred or otherwise invalid

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that Rule 10-A, as it existed at the relevant time, was valid and not ultra vires the rule-making power under the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944; Rule 10-A is a residuary provision applicable where no specific provision for collection exists in the Rules and can apply even where there had been no prior assessment, and therefore demand notices lawfully issued under Rule 10-A could not be struck down on the ground of the Rule's invalidity.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court set aside and matter remanded to the High Court for disposal in accordance with law

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Impugned judgment and order of the Madras High Court dated 19-7-1972 set aside