9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (7) TMI 386X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d manufactured by the appellants prior to 18-6-1977 but cleared on or after 18-6-1977 till 28-6-1977. According to the appellants no duty was Leviable in the relevant period while the Department holds the contrary view. 3. The facts of the case, briefly stated, are that upto the budget of 1977 (the Finance Bill was introduced in the Parliament on 18-6-1977), PVC compound used to be assessed to duty under Item No. 68 of the Central Excise Tariff Schedule (CET). With effect from 18-6-1977, the Department brought the product under Item 15-A, CET and the appellants were paying duty accordingly. On 29-6-1977, the Central Government issued a notification under Central Excise Rule 8(1) exempting PVC compound from the whole of the duty leviable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompound had already been manufactured prior to the budget date- 18-6-1977. Earlier, the product was being assessed to duty under Item No. 68, CET. Although this classification was wrong in the light of a tariff advice by the Board, Shri Ganesan said he was not pressing this point. Since the product was brought under Item No. 15-A, CET on 18-6-1977, no duty could be levied on it under that Item since, as on the date of the change, the goods had already been manufactured and would not attract the new levy under Item No. 15-A CET. (ii) Alternatively, and if the above submission was not accepted, Shri Ganesan would contend that since Parliament did not approve the inclusion of PVC compound and the new levy thereon under Item No. 15-A as evid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the relevant period. The question is whether duty could have been charged under Item 15A, CET on the stocks manufactured prior to 18-6-1977. In our considered view, the date of removal of the goods from the producing factory and not the date of their manufacture determines the rate of duty applicable to the goods. In the Union of India v. The Elphinstone Spinning Weaving Mills Co. Ltd. - 1978 E.L.T. (J 680), the Bombay High Court, after considering the combined effect of Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act and Central Excise Rules 7, 8, 9 and 9-A, held that the point of time at which goods are liable to duty would be the actual removal of the goods from the factory or warehouse and not the date of manufacture or producti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esent case that the pre-18-6-1977 stocks of PVC compound were not liable to be charged with duty under Item No. 15A, CET during the period 18-6-1977 to 28-6-1977 is not tenable and is, therefore, rejected. 8. The Counsel for the appellant made an alternative submission relying upon Section 5(1) of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931. The Section reads as follows :- 5. Certain refunds to be made when declarations cease to have effect. - (1) Where a declared provision comes into operation as an enactment in an amended form before the expiry of the seventy-fifth day after the day on which the Bill containing it was introduced, refunds shall be made of all duties collected which would not have been collected if the provision ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
