COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS versus M/S. VENUS CASTINGS (P) LTD. ETC. ETC.

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS versus M/S. VENUS CASTINGS (P) LTD. ETC. ETC.

Manufacturers who opt for payment of excise duty under Rule 96Z0(3) cannot claim benefit of abatement accruing under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, as Rule 96Z0(3) expressly excludes its application. The two procedures are alternative schemes and cannot be combined. Rule 96Z0(3) is not ultra vires as it is consistent with the statutory purpose of collecting tax based on production. When conflicting High Court decisions exist, the Supreme Court may intervene to settle the law.

Parties
Appellant: COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS; Respondent: MIS. VENUS CASTINGS (P) LTD. ETC. ETC.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
05 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From Tribunal and High Court
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Central Excise Alternative Procedures, Ultra Vires Challenge, Rule Interpretation, Special Leave Petition, Assessment Procedure
Taxation Administrative Law Constitutional Law Central Excise Alternative Procedures Ultra Vires Challenge Rule Interpretation Special Leave Petition Assessment Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND CUSTOMS

Appellant

MIS. VENUS CASTINGS (P) LTD. ETC. ETC.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Decision on Appeal From Tribunal and High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether manufacturers who opted for payment under Rule 96Z0(3) can claim benefit of abatement under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act
  2. 2 Whether Rule 96Z0(3) is ultra vires Section 3A(4)
  3. 3 Appropriateness of Supreme Court entertaining SLP in cases of difference of High Court opinions

Ratio Decidendi

Manufacturers who opt for payment of excise duty under Rule 96Z0(3) cannot claim benefit of abatement accruing under Section 3A(4) of the Central Excise Act, as Rule 96Z0(3) expressly excludes its application. The two procedures are alternative schemes and cannot be combined. Rule 96Z0(3) is not ultra vires as it is consistent with the statutory purpose of collecting tax based on production. When conflicting High Court decisions exist, the Supreme Court may intervene to settle the law.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Orders of Tribunal set aside; Tribunal directed to conform its orders with the Supreme Court's view and pass appropriate orders.
  • No order as to costs.