9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 219X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lectricals Ltd., Pune (the respondent) against the Assistant Collector s decision classifying certain plastic parts such as Radio cabinets, knobs etc. manufactured by the respondent under Item 15A (2) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (Central Excise Tariff) and demanding duty of Rs. 4,12,761.30 on the goods for the period from 28-2-1982 to 19-4-1982. The Appellate Collector held that the goods fell under Item 68 Central Excise Tariff and allowed the appeal. 2. The dispute arising for determination by us is whether articles of plastics such as radio cabinets, knobs etc. fell for classification under Item 15A (2) as held by the Assistant Collector or under Item 68 as held by the Appellate Collector during the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rd Schedule thereto. The Bill contained a declaration under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, to the following effect :- It is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that the provisions of clause .......... ,49, ......... of the Bill shall have immediate effect under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. It is essential to note at this stage that the Finance Bill did not bring about any change in the rate of duty specified against Item 15A (2) which continued to be 50% ad valorem as before the Finance Bill. 5. We must take note of two more changes. The first was that on 28-2-1982, the Central Government issued a notification under Central Excise Rule 8(1) amending Notification No. 68/71, da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lms; whether lacquered or laminated or metallised or not; (ii) rigid plastic boards, sheeting, sheets and films, whether lacquered or laminated or metallised or not; and (iii) flexible polyvinyl chloride sheeting, sheets, films, whether lacquered or laminated or metallised or not, and lay flat tubings not containing any textile material, from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon." [The rest of the notification is not reproduced since it is not relevant for our purpose.]. 6. Against the above background, we may now examine the dispute. The respondent s claim which was rejected by the Assistant Collector but upheld by the Collector (Appeals) was that articles of plastics such as radio cabinets, knobs etc. (to be r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms or Excise. In the present case, the Finance Bill, 1982, did not have the effect of either imposing a duty or excise on the subject goods [they were already excisable under Item 15A (2) though by notification, they were exempt], or of increasing the duty of excise therein [the rate specified against Item 15A (2) did not undergo a change as a result of the Finance Bill; it continued to be 50% ad valorem]. The respondent s contention that prior to 28-2-1982, the duty was nil because of the exemption which increased to 8% because the goods fell under Item 68, has no force, firstly because Section 3 of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act talks of imposition or increase of excise duty by a provision of a Bill. That was not the case wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... applicable to Item 68, Central Excise Tariff. There was a declaration, as in the case before us, under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act. The contention of the respondents was that, notwithstanding the aforesaid changes, the goods continued to attract duty only at the rate specified in Item 68 and inforce at the time of manufacture of goods (i.e. before 28-2-1982) and not at 20% ad valorem, under item 16B, which according to the revenue, was applicable as at time of removal of the goods. In other words, according to the respondents, the amendment only had the effect that whatever was henceforth (from 28-2-1982) manufactured and fell within the amended description in Item 16B, would be classifiable under that item. Whatever had been ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the larger question of the essential difference between the incidence and charge to duty on a levy being imposed and a determination of the applicable rate of duty once the goods are already leviable to duty. A duty of excise is a levy upon manufacture. Removal is relevant only for its assessment and qualification. Once the goods had already been levied to duty, a variation in the tariff description or classification does not imply a fresh levy, even if the results in change in the rate of duty. Such change has a relation to the rate of duty rather than the levy itself or its incidence. 12. These aspects had been discussed in the Tribunal s. Order No. 103/1985-D, in Appeal No. 184 of 1980-D, M/s. The Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. v. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
