1979 (4) TMI 35 - HC - Central Excise

Blowers with electric devices - liability to duty - Contempt of Court - Words and phrases - Device - Meaning of

Summary

Issues:
1. Contempt application filed for non-refund of excise duty on industrial blowers without electrical devices.
2. Interpretation of the order regarding excise duty refund on blowers without electrical devices.
3. Dispute over whether blowers without electrical motors are exempt from excise duty.

Analysis:
1. The judgment pertains to a contempt application filed for the non-refund of excise duty on industrial blowers without electrical devices. The petitioner, a manufacturer of electric fans and blowers, sought a refund of excise duty charged on blowers without electrical devices. The court had previously directed the respondents to refund such duty if realized from the petitioner. However, the respondents failed to heed the petitioner's refund claim, leading to the contempt application against the Collector and Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

2. The interpretation of the order regarding excise duty refund on blowers without electrical devices was a key issue in the judgment. The petitioner contended that blowers sold without electrical motors should not be considered as having an electrical device, thus exempt from excise duty. The court, however, rejected this argument, emphasizing that any blower with arrangements for electrical operation would be liable to excise duty. The court clarified that the presence of a scheme or contrivance for electrical operation constituted an electrical device, making such blowers subject to excise duty.

3. A dispute arose over whether blowers without electrical motors are exempt from excise duty. The petitioner argued that blowers without electric motors should be exempt as they are merely component parts of electric blowers. However, the court disagreed, stating that the presence of arrangements for electrical operation, regardless of the motor's actual fitting, rendered the blowers liable to excise duty. The court clarified that the exemption applied only to blowers without any scheme for electrical operation, emphasizing the distinction between manually operated blowers and those designed for electrical operation.

Overall, the judgment dismissed the contempt application, ruling that the respondents did not violate the court's order as the duty-realized blowers indeed had electrical devices. The court highlighted the importance of the presence of arrangements for electrical operation in determining excise duty liability, ultimately denying the petitioner's refund claim for blowers with such devices.