1981 (9) TMI 134 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality and enforceability of the demand notice dated April 4, 1967.
2. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 206/63 to the products manufactured by the plaintiff.
3. Interpretation of the term "old and used re-rollable scrap" under the Exemption Notification.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality and Enforceability of the Demand Notice:

The plaintiff challenged the demand notice dated April 4, 1967, which required the payment of Rs. 4,917/- as excise duty, claiming it was illegal and unenforceable. The trial court declared the demand notice illegal and invalid, restraining the defendants from recovering any amount pursuant to the notice. However, in appeal, M.C. Trivedi, J. reversed this decision, finding the demand notice legal and valid. The High Court, upon reviewing the case, reinstated the trial court's decision, declaring the demand notice illegal and unenforceable, thereby restoring the trial court's decree.

2. Applicability of Exemption Notification No. 206/63:

The central issue was whether the products manufactured by the plaintiff from second class rejected rails were exempt from excise duty under Exemption Notification No. 206/63. The trial court found that the products were manufactured from old and used re-rollable scrap, thus qualifying for exemption. M.C. Trivedi, J. disagreed, stating that the rails were fresh, unused re-rollable scrap, and since the plaintiff failed to prove that excise duty was paid on such scrap, the exemption did not apply. The High Court, however, concluded that the rails were unserviceable and fell within the definition of "old and used re-rollable scrap" as per the exemption notification, thus qualifying the products for exemption.

3. Interpretation of the Term "Old and Used Re-rollable Scrap":

The interpretation of "old and used re-rollable scrap" was crucial. The trial court relied on the explanation in the exemption notification, which deemed second class rejected rails as old and used re-rollable scrap. M.C. Trivedi, J. did not consider this explanation, leading to his conclusion that the rails were fresh, unused re-rollable scrap. The High Court emphasized the explanation in the exemption notification, which included "scrap, obsolete, second hand and unserviceable rails" as old and used re-rollable scrap. The court found that the second class rejected rails purchased by the plaintiff were unserviceable, thus falling within the exemption's ambit.

Conclusion:

The High Court concluded that the second class rejected rails used by the plaintiff were unserviceable and qualified as old and used re-rollable scrap under the exemption notification. Consequently, the products manufactured by the plaintiff were exempt from excise duty. The appeal was allowed, the decree of M.C. Trivedi, J. was set aside, and the trial court's decree was restored with costs throughout.