1991 (3) TMI 144 - HC - Central Excise

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Quashing the order of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Udaipur.
2. Declaration that soapstone powder is covered by exemption Notification No. 23/55-C.E., dated April 29, 1955.
3. Direction for refund of the central excise duty paid with interest.

Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Quashing the Order of the Superintendent, Central Excise, Udaipur:
The petitioners sought to quash the order dated October 13, 1986, from the Superintendent, Central Excise, Udaipur, which stated that soapstone powder is different from talc, not exempt from duty, and advised the petitioners to maintain records and furnish reports as required under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The court noted that the Ministry had no jurisdiction to decide that soapstone powder is different from talc and that it is not exempt from duty. This jurisdiction lies with the statutory authorities under the Act. The court referenced the Supreme Court's observation in Oriental Paper Mills v. Union of India, stating that no authority can control the decision of a judicial or quasi-judicial authority.

2. Declaration that Soapstone Powder is Covered by Exemption Notification No. 23/55-C.E., dated April 29, 1955:
The petitioners argued that soapstone is talc and thus exempted under Notification No. 23-C.E., dated April 29, 1955. The court examined various pieces of literature and legal precedents to determine whether talc includes soapstone. The court cited Dunlop India Ltd. v. Union of India, which emphasized interpreting words in a taxing statute by their popular meaning. The court also referenced the Minor Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, and various authoritative texts and dictionaries, all indicating that talc and soapstone are treated as the same mineral. The court concluded that talc and soapstone are known and treated as the same mineral by people who use or deal with them, and thus soapstone is included in the term 'talc'. Therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the benefits under Notification No. 23/55-C.E., dated April 29, 1955, if other conditions mentioned therein are fulfilled.

3. Direction for Refund of the Central Excise Duty Paid with Interest:
The petitioners requested a refund of the central excise duty paid under protest, with interest at 18% per annum. The court held that the petitioners are entitled to a refund of the central excise duty paid, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment to the date of refund, provided it is determined by the competent authority that soapstone was employed as an extender, suspending agent, filler, or diluent.

Conclusion:
The writ petitions were partly allowed. The court declared that soapstone is included in the word 'talc' and is covered under Exemption Notification No. 23/55-C.E., dated April 29, 1955. The petitioners are exempted from payment of excise duty if soapstone is employed as an extender, suspending agent, filler, or diluent. The petitioners are entitled to a refund of the central excise duty paid, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of payment to the date of refund, subject to the competent authority's determination of the manner of employment of soapstone. No order as to costs was made.