9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (11) TMI 167X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bmissions sent alongwith that letter. Accordingly, we have heard Shri M.S. Arora, learned JDR for the appellant-Collector and have gone through the records of the case. 2. In their written submissions the respondents have stated that they were manufacturing Glycerin which was exempted from special excise duty upto 18-6-1980. From 19-6-1980, the above product was subject to special excise duty. The respondents had certain finished stock on 18-6-1980 out of the goods manufactured by them prior to 19-6-1980. Those goods were cleared from the factory after 19-6-1980. The question arose as to whether the respondents were liable to pay special excise duty on the stock which was manufactured prior to 19-6-1980, but was cleared after that date. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Sultan Tobacco Company Limited (supra). He has also drawn our attention to Gujarat High Court judgment in the case of Maheshwari Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Others, reported in 1988 (35) E.L.T. 252 (Guj.) and the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. The Collector of Central Excise, Bombay-Ill, reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T 598 (SC) = 1989 (2) SCALE 804, which are in favour of the Revenue. He has stated that following the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as cited supra, the appeals may be allowed. 4. We have considered the records of the case, the written submissions of the respondents and also the arguments of Shri Arora. The issue involved in the present appeals stands settled by the lates ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tock of the said products which were fully manufactured, packed and ready for sale and the inventory of the said stock was prepared by the Supdt. of Central Excise on 1st March, 1987. Reliance was placed on several decisions of the different High Courts, namely, decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India [1978 (2) E.L.T. 33], Union of India v. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. [1978 (2) E.L.T. 690], decision of the Bombay High Court in Synthetic Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. S.C. Coutinho [1981 (8) E.L.T. 414], decision of the Bombay High Court in New Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [1981 (8) E.L.T. 920], decision of the Madras High Court in Sundaram Textiles Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise [1983 (1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and rejected the assessee's' contention."
Accordingly, it was held therein that the Tribunal was right and there was no ground to assail the order of the Tribunal. The appeal filed by Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. In the light of the above discussions and following the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. (supra), we hold that special excise duty was payable on the stock of Glycerin manufactured prior to 19-6-1980, but cleared from the respondents' factory after 19-6-1980. Consequently, we set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals filed by Revenue. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
