9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (8) TMI 368X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed 1-3-1975. 2. The proceedings against the appellants are the outcome of visit dated 23-12-1977 by Superintendent, Central Excise, with Special checking squad to the appellants factory. The officers observed that wire rod/bar not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 43/75, dated 1-3-1975 was being manufactured and cleared as crude aluminium bar without payment of duty as eligible for exemption under the said notification. The officers compared what the appellants were clearing as aluminium bars without payment of duty with wire rod manufactured by the appellants in the same factory and were of the view that a slight deviation in the roundness of the product was intentionally brought into disguise it as a bar solely for the pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... us grounds. After following the usual procedure the Collector of Central Excise by Order-in-Original dated. August 1980 found the revenue s case made out and found against the appellant. The main reasoning of the Collector for finding against the appellant is that Notification No. 43/75 extends the exemption to only aluminium in crude form and castings. Tariff Item 27 distinguishes between the wire bars and wire rods and castings not otherwise specified even though they have been placed in the same sub-heading. He observed Considering all the facts stated it is not important to determine whether the goods are bars or rods. What is to be determined is whether they are castings or whether they are aluminium in crude form. The exemption is av ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants had been manufactured by a continuous casting and rolling process and not by mere casting and the process of rolling took the goods out of the crude category. It upheld the finding of the Collector in rejecting the appellants contention that bars manufactured by them retained their crude character and were eligible for exemption under Notification No. 43/75. It rejected the appellants claim for time-bar. The demand of duty for the period and quantity set out above was confirmed. There was some allegation about wrong declaration of valuation in respect of which the Collector found against the appellants. This aspect of the matter was remanded to the Collector of Central Excise for de novo examination and the question is no more a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the description specified in column 3 of the Table appended to the Notification and falling under sub-items specified in corresponding entry of Col. 2 of the said Table of Item No. 27 of the 1st Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, as was in excess of the duty specified and subject to the conditions laid down in the corresponding Entries in Columns 4 and 5 of the Table : 2(a) Aluminiuim in any crude form (including ingots, bars, blocks slabs, billets, shots, pellets) and castings. If manufactured from any of the following materials or a combination thereof, namely :- (b)old aluminium scrap, or scrap obtained from virgin metal, or virgin aluminium in any crude form or a combination of both on which appropriate duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... such and such, the definition is prima facie extensive . For this observation under Footnote 98 besides the Dilworth case he relies on the following decisions : Renold v. John, (1956) 1 All ER 306, p. 309; State of Bombay v. Hospital Mazdoor Sabha, AIR 1960 S.C. 610, p. 614; Ardeshir H. Bhiwandiwala v. State of Bombay, AIR 1962 SC 29, p. 30; Sant Ram v. Labh Singh, AIR 1965 SC 314, p. 316; CIT, AP v. Taj Mahal Hotel, Secunderabad, AIR 1972 SC 168, p. 170; Inland Revenue Commissioner v. Joiner, supra. 6. From the Tariffs and the Notification it would be seen that the two - Tariff and the Notification - after the phrase in any crude form use the word including which is further followed by products like ingots, bars, blocks and the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Notification that their products were bars meriting exemption under the notification failed to or did not state that they were obtained through continuous casting and rolling process. 7. Apart from the foregoing we cannot overlook the fact that the case of the Revenue against the appellants has not been consistent throughout. According to the show cause notice, dated 14-6-1978 between the period May 1977 to December 1977 the appellants incorrectly declared their product as aluminium bars when in fact they were wire rods/wire bars. The Collector of Central Excise in his Order-in-Original for finding against the appellants and denying them the exemption under Notification No. 43/75, dated 1-3-1975 adopted a different reasoning. He held ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
