9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the petitioner is liable to pay excise duty on power-driven pumps manufactured during the duty-free period from 1-3-1969 to 16-3-1972. 2. Whether the demand for excise duty on pre-budget stocks declared on 16-3-1972 is lawful. 3. The nature and timing of the imposition of excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. Detailed Analysis: 1. Liability to Pay Excise Duty on Power-Driven Pumps Manufactured During the Duty-Free Period: The petitioner, a manufacturer of power-driven pumps, challenged the demand for excise duty on pumps manufactured during the period from 1-3-1969 to 16-3-1972, when such goods were exempt from excise duty by government notifications. The court examined the nature of excise duty under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, which states that excise duty is levied on goods produced or manufactured in India. The court referred to the Supreme Court's pronouncements in British India Corporation Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise and M/s. Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. Union of India, affirming that excise duty is a tax on production or manufacture, and can be imposed retrospectively. However, since the notification dated 17-3-1972 did not have retrospective effect, the goods manufactured during the duty-free period were exempt from excise duty. 2. Lawfulness of the Demand for Excise Duty on Pre-Budget Stocks Declared on 16-3-1972: The petitioner declared the stocks of pumps on 16-3-1972, and the excise authorities demanded duty payment based on the notification effective from 17-3-1972. The petitioner argued that since the goods were manufactured during the duty-free period, no excise duty was payable for their removal. The court noted that excise duty liability arises at the point of production or manufacture, not at the point of removal or sale. Therefore, the demand for excise duty on goods manufactured during the exempt period was unlawful. 3. Nature and Timing of Imposition of Excise Duty: The court emphasized that excise duty is imposed on the completion of the manufacturing process. It distinguished excise duty from other taxes like sales tax or customs duty, which are levied at the point of sale or import/export. The court reiterated that the liability for excise duty arises upon the completion of production, and any subsequent changes in the duty rates do not affect goods manufactured during an exempt period unless explicitly stated in the notification. The court referenced various cases, including Chhotabhai Jethabhai Patel and Co. v. Union of India and Mewar Textiles Ltd., Bhilwara v. Union of India, to support its interpretation that the nature of excise duty remains consistent regardless of retrospective imposition. Conclusion: The court concluded that the demand for excise duty on goods manufactured during the duty-free period was illegal. It quashed the order demanding excise duty and issued a writ of Mandamus restraining the respondents from recovering excise duty on the declared goods. The court directed that the petitioner be allowed to remove the goods without payment of excise duty and awarded costs to the petitioner. The petition was allowed, and the petitioner was entitled to a refund of the security deposit.
|
