9911796707
TMI Blog1984 (12) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e commodity. M/s. Jaideep Corporation started production in the factory from January, 1980 and claimed exemption under Notification No. 71/78-C.E., dated 1-3-78. They also claim that they were loan licensee under the terms of Notification No. 305/77-C.E., dated 5-11-77. 3. The Assistant Collector gave an order dated 5-3-80 in which he said that M/s. Shree Hubli Chemical Works had already availed of the exemption under Notification No. 71/78-C.E. during the financial year 1979-80 and, therefore, the clearances of nil rate of duly of the goods from the same factory by M/s. Jaideep Corporation being in excess of ₹ 5 lakhs would not be permissible. The Appellate Collector agreed with the interpretation of the Assistant Collector. 4. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Notification No. 71/78-C.E. separately. He also quoted judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Hind Lamp Limited v Union of India and others - Writ petition No. 2189/83 decided on 14-5-74, in which the Court decided that if the goods were manufactured on behalf of the customer, then the customer would become the manufacturer and would be liable to pay the excise duty. 8. The learned Counsel for the department submitted that notification 71/78-C.E. was very clear and lays down that all the productions in any financial year by different manufacturers should be clubbed together in order to determine the nil rate of duty clearances which should not exceed ₹ 5 lakhs. He said he did not need to say anything more. 9. It appears to be true ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Agencies (AIR 1968, SC 718) observed that "the Government and its officers are on the authorities of this Court not entitled at their mere whim to ignore the promises made by the Government". This is a ruling that was made in respect of trade notices which made promises and which, apparently, the Government went back upon. The situation before us is different. M/s Jaideep Corporation says that it is a separate, and independent firm with no legal connection with Shree Hubli Chemical Works as can be seen from paragraph 4 of the Assistant Collector's orders. The trade notices speak of goods cleared by the manufacturer on behalf of his loan licensee as the goods which should not be taken into account for the purpose of determining the eligibi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... already been reached by the previous manufacturer by Shree Hubli Chemical Works; the principal. It is, therefore, clear that Shree Hubli's clearances are not entitled to the exemption. 12. Shree Hubli Chemical Works claims that it had registered itself under Notification 305/77-C.E. This notification exempts the manufacturer from the operation of Rule 174 of the Central Excise Rules, that is, the necessity to obtain a licence, if he gets his goods manufactured on his account from any other person, subject to certain conditions. Shree Hubli did not get its goods manufactured on its account by any other parson and, therefore, we are not clear how this notification operates in its case. It seems to us that the appellants have not understood ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
