we find that in the declaration(s) even though the assessee had doubts about the excisability of the said item and even though the assessee had sought clarification as far back on 5th September, 1994; they did not mention the word Scrabble in the body of the declaration(s) filed with the Department. They did not mention the details of the game Scrabble. Therefore, this conduct of the assessee clearly indicates that the assessee herein deliberately declared branded goods under sub-heading 9403.00 of the CETA to avoid any enquiry in the matter by the Department. For the above reasons, we are of the view that the Department was justified in invoking the proviso to Section 11A (1) of the 1944 Act.

Under Indian tax regime, disputed taxes amounting to hundreds of crores is collected by the state, goods worth crores of rupees is confiscated by the state, penalties worth hundred of crores are imposed on citizens by the state through the process of departmental adjudication. I was thinking whether there is any procedure, which the adjudicator is required to follow before he can demand a tax of crores of rupess or deprive people of their property by confiscating goods or imposing penalty on citizens.

Once it is found that “Right to Natural Justice” is a “personal & individual right”, the person concerned can always waive such right. But the moot question is “whether principles of natural justice are personal individual rights?” This paper attempts to examine this question and waiver of such right if it is not a personal individual right.

Many a times the manufacturer of goods (Central Excise assessee) provides other services to the buyer and charges an amount for those services provided. The services may be like transportation of goods to the buyer premises, transit insurance of the goods, interest charges for the credit given to the buyer, Installation of the goods in the buyer’s premises etc. It may happen that cost incurred by themanufacturer assessee in providing these services is much less than what is charged by the manufacturer assessee for these services. The question is whether excess charges collected by the manufacturer assessee should be included in assessable value of the goods under Section 4 of the Act?

Under Central Excise law a Small Scale Industries (SSI) have been given some benefits in duty payments. However these benefits are not available when the SSI unit is manufacturing goods bearing Brand name or Trade name of another person. It has always been a question of great disputes as to what is the meaning of the Brand name or trade name, or when do we call goods as Branded goods and SSI benefit is not available. In absence of clear statutory guidelines, case law was developed by various pronouncements of the Tribunal.

The right to Information Act, 2005 declares that the purpose of the Act is to “ promote openness, transparency and accountability in administration and in relation to matters connected therewith”. Thus the Act is fundamental in making the administration transparent and accountable. However, the result can be achieved only if public is aware of their rights and willing to exercise those rights.

Section 14 of the Central Excise Act and Section 108 of the Customs Act empower officers to summon person, ask questions from persons summoned and record their statement. These statements are legally admissible as evidence in various judicial and quasi-judicial proceeding. Further the persons summoned are legally required to state the truth. These Sections imposes legal duties on the persons summoned, and have wide ranging legal implications, the authors are of the view that the persons summoned under these sections must have a right to consult a legal practitioners of choice at the time of recording of these statements. However the settled position of law is against the view of the authors.

The Supreme Court held in Poolpandi that a person being interrogated under Section 14 of the Central Excise Act or under Section 108 of the Customs Act is not an accused nor can he plead that there is a possibility of being made an accused in future. Hence, he has no right to ask for his advocate presence during enquiry. The whole logic of this judgment fails when the first question is asked from a person summoned, an answer of which is likely to implicate the person summoned in any offence.

The Central Excise law prescribes a time and procedure to pay the duty. When some amount is paid not as per that procedure or at time different from the time of payment of duty, such payment cannot be treated as duty paid under Central Excise. The issue was decided by the Gujrat High Court in Parle International Ltd. V/s VOI [2001 (127) ELT 329 (Guj.)], wherein the Hon’ble Court held that,

It may be noted that rod/bar and wire falls under different heading of CETA. It means that the legislature have treated these two products as two distinct and different products. When the legislative intent of the Parliament is clear about treating these two products differently, it cannot be said that they are same products. The above “Test of different heading” was applied by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Lal Woolen and Silk Mills Ltd. V/s CCE, Chandigarh [1999 (108) ELT 7(S.C.)], wherein the Hon’ble SC held,