Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1986 (1) TMI 321

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oods were "pre-budget stocks" which were lying in a fully manufactured condition prior to 1-3-1978, and therefore no duty could be realised on them. This plea was not accepted by the Assistant Collector. However, on appeal, the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta, accepted this plea and set aside the order of the Assistant Collector. Thereafter the Central Government initiated proceedings under Section 36(2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, as then in force. In the show cause notice dated 15-9-1982 the Central Government observed that prior to 1-3-1978 coke was chargeable to duty under Tariff Item 68. Hence the stock of coke, even though in a fully manufactured condition on 1-3-1978, was chargeable to duty at the appropriate .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d. On that date also the respondents were not present. We therefore proceeded with the hearing in their absence. 5.  Shri Sundar Rajan, the learned Representative of the Department, after briefly setting out the facts, fairly stated that according to his understanding the goods in this case were not excisable prior to 1-3-1978. Therefore the case would be covered by the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad [1985 (21) E.L.T. 757], in favour of the respondents. He had no further arguments to submit. 6.  We have carefully considered the matter. We find that the appellants have not contended that their goods were not excisable prior to 1-3-1978. Their arg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on the judgments in the case of Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. (vide paras 36 and 37 of that order). We find that the principle of the Kirloskar Bros. Ltd. case, which received the approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, is applicable to the present case. In accordance with that principle the goods which were in fully manufactured condition as on the midnight of 28-2-1978/1-3-1978 were not liable to the new duty under T.1.11-D. We accordingly discharge the show cause notice and confirm the order of the Appellate Collector. 8.  [Order per : H.R.Syiem, Member (T)]. -I have always been of the opinion that manufacture of the goods has nothing to do with subjection to excise duty. Excise duty attaches itself to the goods in accordance with the provi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... is makes it necessary for not only the public but also the tax collecting department to be certain what rate to apply. The rate that is applicable or in force on the date of clearance is one rate; it is a most exact and confined to the narrowest space of time possible as to be incapable of variations or disputes. The rate on the day of clearance is only one rate and there can never be two. There may refinements and slight differences in the actual operation of this principle; but as a general statement, rates of duty remain always one for the same one day; only one rate of duty is identifiable on the day of clearance. 9.  This is not easy in the case of manufacture, because manufacture is spread over a number of days. It may be a comp .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... out for it. 10.  There is no law which says that goods manufactured when there was no duty on them will be cleared free of duty even when that clearance is effected after duty has been imposed on such goods. It is not easy to see what relevance the manufacture of goods has to the attachment of the rate of duty, if there is such a rate of duty on the day goods are cleared from the place of manufacture. Surely if manufacture was to form the basis for the attachment of rate of duty, Rule 9A would have had a suitable provision or perhaps an explanation to say that the rate of duty would not apply if the goods were manufactured when that rate was not applicable, or if there was no duty applicable to the goods at the time of manufacture. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates