9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to duty on water content of synthetic resins under Central Excise Rules and Notification validity. Analysis: 1. The petitioner sought relief from paying duty on water content of synthetic resins and challenged the validity of Notification No. 156/65 dated 23rd September, 1965, under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules and the Central Excises and Salt Act. 2. The duty was sought to be levied on Phenol Formaldehyde Resins as per the First Schedule to the Act, with an exemption for amounts exceeding 80 paise per kg of phenol resin. The petitioner argued for duty only on the solid content, excluding water content. 3. The petitioner claimed that opting for concessional rates resulted in higher duty payment than leviable under the Act, contending that the Department erred in subjecting Phenol Resin, with water content, to duty instead of solely on the solid content. 4. Reference was made to a Circular by the Central Board of Revenue regarding exclusion of products with volatile organic solvents, but the Court did not consider it as having statutory authority, thus not influencing the decision. 5. The Court's focus was on examining the validity of the Notification dated 23rd September, 1965, under Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, assessing if it contravened statutory rules, was discriminatory, or if the Central Board of Revenue exceeded its powers in enforcing the notification. 6. It was noted that the petitioner had the choice to opt for concessional rates or pay duty as per the Act, and having chosen the concessional rate voluntarily, challenging the notification's validity based on increased duty was deemed unsubstantiated. 7. The Government's order highlighted the impact of water content on resin properties, supporting the assessment of duty based on gross weight, as the presence of water affected the adhesive properties of the resin. 8. The Court dismissed the challenge to the validity of the concessional rate notification, stating that none of the grounds raised by the petitioner were valid, and there was no statutory rule mandating duty calculation on Phenol Formaldehyde Resin without considering its water content. In conclusion, the Court rejected the petitioner's challenge, discharged the rule, vacated the stay order, and ruled no costs to be paid.
|
