9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (6) TMI 260X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -5-78 to 30-9-78. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras VIII Division in his Order No. V/l/30/133/81-T.I., dated 26-7-82 determined that a quantity of 46,805.19 Qtls. was the excess production during that period in terms of the notification. Thereafter, he noted how much of this quantity had been cleared in the various months-they were cleared between May 1978 and November 1978. Based on the quantity cleared in each month, the rate of duty and tariff valuation existing during the related month of clearance, both for levy sugar and the other sugar (free sale sugar), he arrived at the quantum of concession admissible under the two notifications as ₹ 9,17,180.46. After giving due notice to the appellants, he rejected their claim for the excess sum of Rs, 2,54,142.42. The sum claimed by the appellant was at the rate of ₹ 54 per quintal in respect of free sale sugar from out of the quantity determined as excess production. The appellants appealed to the Appellate Collector of Central Excise, Madras, against this order. Rejecting that appeal, the Appellate Collector observed in his Order No. V/1/24/82 dated 19-10-82. The so-called rebate claimed by a manufac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he case of the same producer from time to time depending upon the date of the release order and the quantum of release in respect of levy sugar by the Government in the Department of Food. It is also claimed that if the totality of the production during the period 1st May, 1978 to 31-10-78 is taken into account, the total amount of duty paid by a manufacturer both on the quantity within the base production and that on the excess, the amount of duty payable is not less than the net duty leviable. The relief, if any, comes out of the quantum of duty paid both in respect of the base production and excess production. 5. Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 provides that no excisable goods shall be removed from any place where they are produced, cured or manufactured or any premises appurtenant thereto, which may be specified by the Collector in this behalf, whether for consumption...... until the excise duty leviable thereon has been paid at such place and in such manner...... on the form. If the argument of the learned advocate for the appellants that duty leviable on any goods should be taken to mean the quantum of duty calculated at the rate mentioned in the Schedule to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sed object of the notification. This was plainly stated by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Hansraj Gordhandas v. H.H. Dave, AIR 1970 S.C. 755 and Union of India and others v. Tata Iron and Steel Co. Limited, AIR 1976 S.C. 599. In that case Their Lordships were considering the provisions of a notification which granted exemption from payment of duty in respect of goods which had been produced and cleared from one or more factories in excess of base clearances; the concession was to the extent of 25% of the duty otherwise leviable. The issue was whether the exemption would be available if the benefit of the exemption was not passed on to the consumer. The point had been urged that the object of granting the concession was to benefit the consumer by reduction of the selling price of the goods. As observed by Their Lordships in paragraph 11 of the Judgment : the contention of the respondent (Union of India and others) was that the petitioner would be entitled to the benefit of the duty rebate only if he reduced the price proportionately to the reduction in duty so as to pass on the benefit of the reduction of the duty to the purchasers of the tyres and tubes. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... retation of a charging or taxing provision of a taxing statute. He, therefore, urged that the question of treating various manufacturers of sugar during the same period of production who may be clearing the same at different time does not arise if the law did not specifically provide for the same and the principles of equity cannot be applied in such a situation. We agree. 9. The Advocate for the appellant referred to an observation. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia and Others v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar and others (AIR 1958 S.C. 538); In order, however, to pass the test of permissible classification two conditions must be fulfilled, name (i) that the classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The classification may be founded on different bases, namely, geographical, or according to objects or occupations or the like. What is necessary is that there must be a nexus between the basis or clas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
