9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (2) TMI 178X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er : D.C. Mandal, Member (T)]. - The question to be decided in this case is whether plastic torches manufactured by the appellants prior to 1.3.1982, but cleared from the factory during the period from 1.4.1982 to 24.4.1982 were liable to pay central excise duty. The lower authorities have held that duty was payable on the goods at the time of clearance. 2. Shri Rangwani has argued that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an Organic Chemicals Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras, no duty was payable on the goods at the time of clearance during the period from 1.4.1982 to 24.4.1982. 3. Shri Chakraborty for the respondent, has argued that in the case of Geep Flashlight Industries Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1985 (22) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that plastic torches ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hes manufactured by the appellants prior to 1.3.1982 were, therefore, liable to pay duty. They were not exempted from payment of duty at the time of manufacture. In the circumstances, duty was to be paid at the time of clearance of the goods. Duty has been correctly demanded by the Department. 5. We do not, therefore, find any justification to interfere with the orders of the lower authorities. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
