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

1991 (7) TMI 194

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Item 3(2) of the Central Excise Tariff, out of loose tea falling under T.I. 3(i) of the Central Excise Tariff. As a result of the visit by the excise officer on 8-1-1981 it was noticed that the respondents were manufacturing package tea without having obtained a proper Central Excise Licence. As the tea was packed in polythene bags marked with standard weight of 1 kg, 500 gms and 250 gms and were found stapled having labels of Padamshri Brand kept inside the package. Accordingly, a case was booked on 13-1-1981 and a quantity of 45.250 kgs. of Padamshri and Sartaj brand package tea was seized. A show cause notice was issued and the Superintendent after usual adjudication proceedings imposed a penalty of Rs. 150/- and confiscated the s .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y of 24.500 grams of package tea was also seized at Dabra and the proceedings were drawn against the said M/s. Om Prakash Ashok Kumar of Dabra and the present respondents. Show cause notices were issued and after the adjudication proceedings the Assistant Collector vide his Adjudication Order dated 18-2-1983 imposed a penalty of Rs. 500/- and a redemption fine of Rs. 1000/- on each of the present respondents and also demanded duty. Being aggrieved with the classification of the product under Tariff Item 3(2) of Central Excise Tariff and the confiscation of the seized package tea and imposition of various penalties as detailed out above, the present respondents preferred their appeal before the Collector (Appeals). The Collector (Appeals) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ure which makes the article excisable to the duty. The criterion of such differentiation is not unintelligible. Package tea is not necessarily produced or manufactured by the undertakings which manufacture tea in bulk and package tea is sold to a class of buyers different from the class which purchase tea in bulk and can be treated as a different commercial item. Therefore, the authorities are entitled to treat package tea as a separate and excisable item and excise duty levied over package tea is valid and lawful. Faced with this situation, Shri P.N. Kaul, learned Counsel, who appeared on that date cited the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1988 (33) E.L.T. 260 (AP) = 1989 (23) ECR 96 and requested for adjournment to .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e of M/s. V.R. Industries v. Superintendent of Central Excise, 1988 (33) E.L.T. 260 (AP) = 1989 (23) ECR 96, he submitted that the said case is distinguishable on facts inasmuch as in the aforesaid case the only question to be decided by the Andhra Pradesh High Court was as to whether the packing of goods for easy marketability amounts to manufacture or not, whereas in the instant case the tea was not packed for easy marketability, but was being packed and sold under the brand name of the respondents themselves, that is to say, by keeping the labels of Padmani, Padamshri and Sartaj brand inside the package itself. He also drew our attention to the case of Atma Steels Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh, 1984 (17) E.L.T. 3 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ndia Ltd., supra, we hold that the package tea is an excisable goods and was rightly classified under Tariff Item 3(2). The case of M/s. V.R. Industries, supra, is distinguishable on the facts of the case as pointed out by the learned SDR above, with whom we agree. Thus, we allow both the appeals which relates to the classification of the subject goods. 9. As regards remaining four appeals which relate to seizure and penalties, it was argued by the learned SDR that since at the relevant time the appellants failed to obtain the licence under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, the Order of confiscation and penalty was rightly passed. 10. We have considered the submissions. From the facts and the circumstances of the case, we find t .....

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