9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Exemption under Notification No. 176/77 for rubber-lining activities. 2. Classification of different categories of rubber-lining activities. 3. Challenge of review notice for valuation under the notification. 4. Whether rubber-lining amounts to manufacture. 5. Valuation for excise duty purposes. 6. Refund of excise duty paid during the petition. Detailed Analysis: 1. The petitioners, engaged in rubber-lining activities, claimed exemption under Notification No. 176/77, which was rejected by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise due to exceeding the value limit of goods supplied for rubber-lining. The petitioners appealed to the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), who partially allowed the appeal by categorizing different activities of rubber-lining. 2. The Collector (Appeals) distinguished between naked tanks and vessels supplied by manufacturers for rubber-lining and those supplied by customers or old tanks and vessels for rubber-lining. The petitioners did not challenge this decision initially but later received a review notice from the Government of India, leading them to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. 3. The petitioners argued that rubber-lining activities for tanks and vessels supplied by customers or old tanks do not amount to manufacture, citing a Supreme Court judgment. They contested the review notice's legality, stating it would be futile given the settled law on the matter. 4. The High Court analyzed whether rubber-lining of tanks and vessels received from manufacturers constituted manufacture. The Collector (Appeals) had determined it as manufacture, a decision not challenged by the petitioners through further appeal. The Court declined to interfere, citing the prevailing view that job work done on customer-supplied articles amounts to manufacture. 5. The Court addressed the valuation issue under Notification No. 176/77, where the Collector (Appeals) considered both job charges and the value of tanks and vessels. The petitioners argued that only the cost incurred by the job worker should be considered, relying on a Division Bench judgment. The Court agreed, holding that only the value of job work done should be considered for excise duty levy and valuation purposes. 6. The High Court partly allowed the petition, setting aside the review notice and modifying the Collector (Appeals) direction on valuation. The petitioners were granted a refund of excise duty paid during the petition, with specific instructions for calculation and refund process, including interest if not refunded within the stipulated time frame.
|
