9911796707
TMI Blog1972 (3) TMI 103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein purchased this factory and applied for transfer of the licence on 16th October, 1963, and a fresh licence was issued in terms of the provisions of rule 178(3) of the Central Excise Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). The transferor had the benefit of exemption from excise duty under notification No. 131 of 1962 dated 13th June, 1962. But the petitioners who are transferees of the factory were held not entitled to the exemption under the said notification as they had applied for licence after 13th June, 1962 and the benefit of exemption under the notification was not available to new licensees. In that view the excise authorities issued a demand under rule 10-A of the Rules for ₹ 7,485.66 being the excise duty on the clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atutory backing. The learned Central Government Standing Counsel does not, in fact, seek to sustain the demand under rule 10-A of the Rules in view of the above decision. But he wants to sustain the demand under rule 9(2). According to him the goods manufactured by the petitioners during the relevant period had been cleared without payment of duty and, therefore, it will straightaway attract rule 9(2). But we have held in W.P. Nos. 265 and 266 of 1967 that Murugan and Company v. The Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Tiruchirapalli and 2 others W.P. No. 265 of 1967 S.P. Tiruvadi and Company, by partners S.P. Thiruvadi and S. Adiappa Pillai v. The Inspector of Central Excise, Cuddalore Range and another W.P. No. 266 of 1967, rule 9(a) canno ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n one metric Ton of Billots in any calendar month or more than 10 metric ton of Billots in a year for re-rolling; 2. Provided further that any manufacture of iron and steel products applying for licence on or after the 13th June, 1962 shall not be eligible for this exemption". It is seen that the licence issued under the Rules is personal to the licensee and therefore, the petitioners who are transferees of the factory from the former licensee can only be treated as new licensees after the relevant date, that is 13th June 1962, mentioned in the second proviso to the notification. It is not in dispute that the petitioners applied for licence only on 16th October, 1963, long after the crucial date, namely, 13th June, 1962, referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
