9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (3) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the benefit of Notification 199/75 should be extended to them. The refund claim related to the period 11-9-1975 to 28-2-1978. The party had also made the payment under protest. The face value of the machinery in the year 1969-70 was to the tune of Rs. 7,69,869.00 and after giving due allowance for depreciation etc., the value of the Plant Machinery was Rs. 5,34,682.00. The Asstt. Collector held that the value of the Plant Machinery was Rs. 10,48,918.00. The Asstt. Collector also held that the respondents were manufacturing aluminium rods in the same unit and that the capital investment on that Plant Machinery installed in the Industrial Unit should also be taken into account in which event the respondents would not be entitled to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le unit. The SDR also urged that since the respondents have collected the duty from the buyers, they cannot daim the refund. He relied on 1986 S.T.C. (62) 130 (AmarNath Om Parkash and Others v. The State of Punjab and Others). 4. Shri V. Lakshmi Kumaran, stated that the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not apply and relied on 1985 (22) E.L.T. 539 [Collector of Central Excise, Guntur v. Andhara Asphalt (P) Ltd.] and also 1986 (26) E.L.T. 394 [Sahu Cylinders and Udyog (P) Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Madras]. 5. On merits, he urged that the respondents factory was set up in 1964, and ten years later the machinery for wire rods conversion basis was installed. There were five other units in the complex. The Central Excise Licences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 86). (3) M/s. Velcro India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Bhavnagar (Rajkot) (Order No. 281-284/86-D, dated 3-5-1986). 6. He urged that the Plant Machinery in the industrial unit intended for Item 33-B should be taken into consideration for the purpose of determination of the eligibility for the exemption. 7. We have carefully considered the contentions of both the parties. Admittedly, the respondents are manufacturer of item under 33-B (Wires Cables) from out of aluminium wire rods (T.I.27). Notification 199/75 exempts electric wires and cables falling under T.1.33-B from so much of the duty as is in excess of duty specified in Col. 4 of the Table Annexed to the Notification. But in Sl. No. 5 it is stated that the Asstt. Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Plant Machinery of those items should not be clubbed. The Tribunal has followed the above decision. In the cases (cited supra) where the notifications contained identical words. Two units here, are (i) for the manufacture of aluminium rods; and (ii) for the manufacture of wires and cables. Since the aluminium rods formed the raw-material for the wires and cables, Shri A.K. Jain was asked whether there was any decision of any other High Court against the decisions of the Bombay High Court or Allahabad High Court. Shri Jain stated that there is no decision to the contrary. The Tribunal s decision in 1983 E.L.T. 1212 was pronounced prior to the decision in Dayal case. We respectfully follow the decisions of the Bombay High Court and the Al ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
