Madan Mohan Vs. Superintendent of Central Excise

Madan Mohan vs Superintendent of Central Excise

Disposition Petition dismissed Court Allahabad Decided Jul 17, 1991

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/478428

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/478428
Court: Allahabad High Court
Judge: B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and ;R.R.K. Trivedi, J.
Decided On: Jul 17, 1991
Case Number: Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 216 of 1981
Subject: Excise
Disposition: Petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Held: Tobacco unfit for consumption, not having been warehoused - Remission not admissible. CE Rule 149.Petition dismissed. - - It is complained that no action was taken by the authorities and at the same time they were proposing to recover the duty assessed and were adopting coercive process.

Key legal issue: Excise
Outcome / disposition: Petition dismissed
Acts & sections: Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 9A(1), 19 and 149

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Madan Mohan

Respondent

Superintendent of Central Excise

Legal References

Acts: Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 9A(1), 19 and 149
Reported In: 1995LC18(Allahabad); 1992(58)ELT497(All)

Excerpt

held: tobacco unfit for consumption, not having been warehoused - remission not admissible. ce rule 149.petition dismissed. - - it is complained that no action was taken by the authorities and at the same time they were proposing to recover the duty assessed and were adopting coercive process......they raised tobacco in their land.2. rule 9a(1) of the central excise rules provides that in the case of goods removed from the premises of curer on payment of duty, the date on which the duty is assessed is the relevant date for determination of duty and tariff valuation.3. the petitioners opted for assessment of their tobacco under rule 9a(1) read with rule 19 of the central excise rules, 1944. they did not pay the duty assessed. demand notices were accordingly issued. it is then that they came forward with the present writ petition.4. in the writ petition, it is alleged that the tobacco had become unfit for human consumption on account of storage and, therefore, they wanted to use it for agricultural purposes. accordingly, it is said that they approached the authorities on several occasions to permit them to do so and to remit the duty. it is complained that no action was taken by the authorities and at the same time they were proposing to recover the duty assessed and were adopting coercive process.5. in the counter-affidavit this averment is denied. indeed, it is submitted that in view of the option exercised by the petitioners, the question of remission of duty does not arise. it is also pointed out that rule 149 has no application inasmuch as none of the petitioners had licenced premises/warehouses nor it is their case that their tobacco was stored in a licenced warehouse.6. no material is filed by the petitioners nor is brought to our notice to show that they had, at any time, filed an application for remission. rule 149 which appears to be the only rule for remission of duty on tobacco has no application to the petitioners' case because their tobacco was not stored in a warehouse. the duty was assessed in this case no ground has been made out upon which it can be held that it is not recoverable.7. the writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. no costs.

Full Judgment

B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J.

1. This writ petition was filed by a large number of agriculturists/growers of tobacco. During the years 1976-77 and 1977-78, they raised tobacco in their land.

2. Rule 9A(1) of the Central Excise Rules provides that in the case of goods removed from the premises of curer on payment of duty, the date on which the duty is assessed is the relevant date for determination of duty and tariff valuation.

3. The petitioners opted for assessment of their tobacco under Rule 9A(1) read with Rule 19 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. They did not pay the duty assessed. Demand notices were accordingly issued. It is then that they came forward with the present writ petition.

4. In the writ petition, it is alleged that the tobacco had become unfit for human consumption on account of storage and, therefore, they wanted to use it for agricultural purposes. Accordingly, it is said that they approached the authorities on several occasions to permit them to do so and to remit the duty. It is complained that no action was taken by the authorities and at the same time they were proposing to recover the duty assessed and were adopting coercive process.

5. In the counter-affidavit this averment is denied. Indeed, it is submitted that in view of the option exercised by the petitioners, the question of remission of duty does not arise. It is also pointed out that Rule 149 has no application inasmuch as none of the petitioners had licenced premises/warehouses nor it is their case that their tobacco was stored in a licenced warehouse.

6. No material is filed by the petitioners nor is brought to our notice to show that they had, at any time, filed an application for remission. Rule 149 which appears to be the only Rule for remission of duty on tobacco has no application to the petitioners' case because their tobacco was not stored in a warehouse. The duty was assessed in this case no ground has been made out upon which it can be held that it is not recoverable.

7. The writ petition accordingly fails and is dismissed. No costs.

Same Court & Year Allahabad · 1991 Same Parties Madan Mohan vs Superintendent of Central Excise Same Subject Excise Same Judge B.P. Jeevan Reddy, C.J. and ;R.R.K. Trivedi, J. Acts & Sections Central Excise Rules, 1944 - Rules 9A(1), 19 and 149

Excise