2023 (9) TMI 453

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tiable, but were cleared later, the same become subject of levy of duty from the date of levy and such goods shall not be leviable to Excise Duty, if produced earlier. In short, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that it is point and date of levy which is important and not the point or date of clearance of the goods to determine, if the goods manufactured were dutiable or not - The Hon ble Apex Court also held the recovery of duty according to the date of removal does not make removal to be the taxable event for Central Excise. While it is true from the analysis of aforesaid decisions that the impugned goods i.e. Yarn in this instance were taxable as on the date they were manufactured as levy was subsisting. On the date of clearance, on wi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ect of levy of duty from the date of levy and such goods shall not be leviable to Excise Duty, if produced earlier. In short, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that it is point and date of levy which is important and not the point or date of clearance of the goods to determine, if the goods manufactured were dutiable or not. The Hon ble Supreme Court also while analysing the relevant provisions held that erstwhile Rule 9 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 refers to removal of excisable goods and not of goods , therefore, the goods per se must be excisable first before being subjected to levy of Excise duty before their removal. During the course of decision the Hon ble Supreme Court also relied upon the decision of WALLACE FLOUR MILLS CO. LT .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... M Limited as reported in 2011(9) TMI 426 (S.C). The decision duly considered, WALLACE FLOUR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. COLLECTOR OF C.EX cited (supra) as also concurred with Collector of Central Excise, Bombay Vs. Polyset Corporation as reported in 2000 (115) ELT 41 (S.C.). The Court dismissed the department s appeal in factual background of stock of Excise goods manufactured before and enhanced rate of duty, liability coming into force later, but goods having been cleared after such enhancement in the duty if held that the taxable event as stated in the WALLACE FLOUR MILLS CO. LTD. VS. COLLECTOR OF C.EX case is manufacture of the goods and payment of duty is related to the date of removal of all such goods from the factory. The Hon ble Supreme C .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X