2004 (9) TMI 129 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of exemption notifications for levy of auxiliary duty.

Analysis:
The petitioner, a manufacturer of copper and copper alloy pipes and tubes, was found to have incorrectly calculated auxiliary duty, resulting in a short levy. The Assistant Collector confirmed the demand after rejecting the petitioner's contentions. The Appellate Collector upheld the decision for different reasons. The Central Government dismissed the revision petition submitted by the petitioner, leading to a writ petition being dismissed by a Single Judge, which the petitioner now appeals against.

The main issue in this appeal revolves around the interpretation of exemption notifications for the levy of auxiliary duty. The petitioner's counsel argued that before charging any auxiliary duty, the notification No. 213/63 dated 28-12-1963 should have been considered. This notification exempted pipes and tubes of copper and copper alloys from excise duty if duty-paid copper or copper alloys were used in their manufacture. The chargeability of auxiliary duty should have been calculated based on subsequent notifications, such as No. 61/75 dated 1-3-1975, which was later replaced by No. 127/75 dated 12-5-1975.

The relevant excerpts from the notifications highlight the conditions for exemption and the calculation of auxiliary duty. Notification No. 213/63 exempted certain copper and copper alloy products from excise duty based on the use of duty-paid materials in their manufacture. The subsequent notifications, particularly No. 61/75 and its replacement No. 127/75, provided guidelines for calculating auxiliary duty, ensuring that it did not exceed the specified limits.

The petitioner's argument hinges on the proper application of these exemption notifications to determine the correct levy of auxiliary duty. The notification No. 213/63 set the foundation for exemption based on the use of duty-paid materials, while subsequent notifications aimed to regulate the calculation of auxiliary duty to prevent overcharging. The petitioner's contention is that the incorrect method of calculation led to a short levy, which the authorities upheld despite the petitioner's objections.

In conclusion, the appeal before the High Court centers on the correct interpretation and application of exemption notifications related to the levy of auxiliary duty on copper and copper alloy pipes and tubes. The petitioner's case rests on the assertion that the notifications should have been followed accurately to determine the appropriate amount of duty payable, highlighting discrepancies in the calculation method adopted by the authorities. The outcome of this appeal will likely depend on the court's assessment of the notifications and their relevance to the petitioner's situation.