9911796707
TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) If it fell under T.I. 68, whether the demand of duty of Rs. 16,21,846.98 (BED) plus Rs. 12,394.85 (SED) for the period 1-4-1979 to 8-11-1982 is liable to be paid by the respondents demanded against the show cause notice dated 18-12-1982. 2. In order to appreciate the above two questions certain facts are set out as below :- 2.1. The respondents had declared, inter alia, manufacture of "Stepped pipes and Tubes (Tubular Poles) welded in three sections after requisite jobbing' and claimed exemption under Notification 69/73-C.E., dated 1-3-1973 by filing a declaration under Notification 111/78, dated 9-5-1978. The department alleged on the basis of process of manufacture commercial parlance and incorrect declaration that there has been eva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is involved. The party had drawn inspiration from the budget instructions and notification issued in 1962-63 respectively under T.I. No. 26AA. As to whether a particular item falls within a particular entry or not, the authorities have to find out on the basis of relevant facts. The proper test for classification of goods under appropriate specific entries and sub-entries is now judicially well settled. For a manufactured article to fall under a particular item it should be shown to be known by that description to the consumer and commercial community. It is clear that meanings given to article in fiscal statute must be as people in trade and commerce, conversant with the subject generally treat and understand them in the usual course. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat proceedings against M/s. Associated Strips (P) Ltd. and M/s. Haryana Fabricators Faridabad be dropped." 2.3. This appeal against the Collector's order has been filed by the department on the orders of the Central Board of Excise and Customs exercising its powers under Section 35-E of the Act. The order of the Board has more or less set out the same pleas as were mentioned in the show cause notice to the respondents. In addition, however, it has also drawn attention to a judgment of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd. v. CCE, Bhubaneshwar [1985 (21) E.L.T. 548 (Tribunal)]. It has been held in the Tribunal's judgment in the said case that the poles have a distinct name, character and use than the pipes and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597 that a contemporaneous exposition by the administrative authorities is a very useful and relevant guide to the interpretation of the expressions used in a statute. Considering that the above clarification was sought for at the earliest point of time when a doubt arose as to the scope of the expression used by the statute and given after considering the technicalities of the processes employed in the manufacture of finished leather by the department fully conversant with this branch of trade and in the context of the provisions of this very statute, the terms of the statute can well be construed by reference to such exposition, in the absence of anything in the statute to indicate the contrary. Indeed, 'such interpreta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lea of the learned advocate for the respondents. We are unable to agree that Notification 41/63 dated 1-3-1963 could be treated as a contemporaneous exposition of the classification of the poles in question for all time to come even after the rescindment of the said notification by Notification 21/64 dated 1-3-1964; nor do we think that Notification 52/64, dated 1-3-1964 was a more comprehensive notification including within its scope the exemption on electric poles. A close reading of Notification 52/64 dated 1-3-1964 shows that it is only in supersession of Notification 41/63 dated 1-3-1963. It does not refer at all to supersession of Notification 41/63 dated 1-3-1963. It is, therefore, possible, though there is no clear evidence to that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Indian Metals and Ferro Alloys Ltd. (supra). 4.3. On the basis of facts, as mentioned above, it is, however, doubtful whether a period of five years can be invoked by the department in demanding duty from the respondents who had filed a declaration under Notification 111/78 dated 9-5-1978 claiming exemption Notification 69/73-C.E., dated 1-3-1973. We do not find, as alleged by the department, that there is any material suppression of facts. The words "tubular poles" in the declaration of goods manufactured was sufficient indication of the manufacturing activity of the respondents. They had also clearly mentioned the claim of the exemption Notification 69/73. In view of these declarations and claim ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
