9911796707
TMI Blog1997 (1) TMI 188X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acture. The appellants herein relied upon the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. v. CCE, Hyderabad reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 757 in which the Tribunal held that special excise duty is not leviable where the duty in question had not been imposed or had been exempt at the time when the goods were manufactured. The lower appellate authority has held that the taxable event is manufacture; but the liability to pay duty is postponed till the time of removal in terms of Rule 9A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 and has dismissed the appeal of the assessees, relying upon the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. reported in 1989 (44) E.L.T. 598 (SC). 2. We have ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ir Sultan Tobacco Co. v. C.C.E., Hyderabad - 1985 (21) E.L.T. 757. The Tribunal has held in this case that no duty is leviable where the duty in question has not been imposed or has been exempted at the time of manufacture. The Tribunal while reaching its conclusion has taken into consideration various judgments of the High Courts and also the Supreme Court of India. 7. The ld. Collector (Appeals) had rejected the petition of the appellants relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Wallace Flour Mills Co. Ltd. 1989 (44) E.L.T. 598. It was however, their contention that the ld. Collector (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that the goods were manufactured and ready for sale prior to the introduction of the Finance Bill and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cifically deals with the SED and clarifies the position w.r.t. pre-budget stock. 12. Since in the present case, the SED was leviable although exempt, therefore, it was chargeable to SED at the time of their clearance. 13. We have considered the above submissions. It is observed that the ld. DR is correct to the extent of pointing out that the Supreme Court has settled the issue in the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Co. Ltd. (supra). It is observed that the view taken by the Tribunal in the case referred to [by] the ld. Counsel has only been upheld by the Supreme Court. It is observed that SED was not leviable on the goods manufactured or producted prior to the date of levy even though they were cleared or removed after imposition of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
