9911796707
TMI Blog1995 (11) TMI 225X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f such special excise duty under the Finance Bill, 1988. He, therefore, set aside the orders passed by the Assistant Collector and ordered refund in the above-said cases. 2. Appeal Nos. E-107/90 to 111/90 are appeals also filed by the same Collectorate against the Order passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta in Order-in-Appeal No. 206-210/Pat/89, dated 6-11-1989 in terms of which he held that since the subject goods were manufactured prior to the date of imposition of special excise duty under the Finance Bill, 1988, the said goods even if cleared on or after the date of imposition of such special excise duty, were not liable to levy of special excise duty. In coming to that conclusion he relied upon the decision in the case of Vazir Sultan Tabacco Co. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 757. 3. Since in all these appeals the point involved is similar we propose to dispose of these appeals by a common order. 4. Ld. Advocate, Shri Anup Bose appeared for the respondent company, M/s. TISCO Ltd., Jamshedpur in Appeal Nos. E-112/90 to 118/90 and ld. Advocate, Shri N. Mookherjee for the respondent company, M/s. Indian Steel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of such special excise duty. Otherwise, the provisions of Rule 9A of the said Rules would not only ultra vires Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 but would also be contrary to Entry 84, List 1, Schedule VII of the Constitution of India. He, therefore, contended that the net effect of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision is that as and when there is a change in the rate of duty either due to issue or withdrawal of an exemption notification or due to modification of rates in the Tariff Schedule, the rates prevalent on the date of clearance would be applicable, irrespective of the date of manufacture of the article in question. But the imposition of special excise duty cannot be treated as a change in the rate of duty. Therefore, neither Rule 9A nor the ratio of the aforesaid Supreme Court decision would be applicable to the facts of these cases in view of the fact that on the date of manufacture - the taxable event - there was no special excise duty in force and consequently, the goods cannot be made liable to such duty on the date of removal. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision in the case of Ganesh Extrusion Artistries v. Collector of Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of manufacture and in this case the manufacture was complete before the introduction of the budget. It was submitted that until 28th February, 1987, when, according to Shri Dutta, the goods had been manufactured, the goods in question were unconditionally exempt from the duty. Under the Finance Bill, 1987-88, the said products were made dutiable at the rate of 15% ad valorem on or from 1st March, 1987. But the appellant had in their factory, a stock of the said products which were duly manufactured, according to Shri Dutta, packed and ready for sale prior to 28th February, 1987. In those circumstances, the goods in question, according to Shri Dutta, would not be subjected to duty at 15% ad valorem. Having considered the facts and the circumstances of the case, we are unable to accept this submission. Excise is a duty on manufacture or production. But the realisation of the duty may be postponed for administrative convenience to the date of removal of goods from the factory. Rule 9A of the said rules merely does that. That is the scheme of the Act. It does not, in our opinion, make removal be the taxable event. The taxable event is the manufacture. But the liability to pay the duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s merely postponed and the duty payable on those goods will be the duty which is in force on the date on which they are removed. 10. The decision of the Tribunal reported in 1993 (66) E.L.T. 639 (T) = 1992 (40) ECR 346 (supra) is not applicable to the facts of these cases. In that particular case at Paras 9 and 10 the Tribunal held as follows : - 9. As observed by us earlier, the processes of lacquering or printing or both of plain aluminium containers was brought within the scope of the definition of the term manufacture in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the first time on 18-6-1980 by the Finance Bill of 1980. Hence, it has to be held that the printed or lacquered or both printed and lacquered aluminium containers manufactured up to 18-6-1980 by the appellants out of plain duty aluminium containers were not excisable. 10. Since no duty was leviable on the stock of printed and lacquered aluminium container held in stock by the appellants on 18-6-1980, we hold that in respect of such goods the Collector (Appeals) s decision to extend the benefit of Notification No. 93/80 was erroneous." In that particular case, the process of lacquering or prin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
