9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (10) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 26AA of the First Schedule with reference to Section 3 of the Act. Section 3 of the Act could not therefore be invoked to levy excise duty merely on the ground that the "pre-excise stock" of rods and bars was utilised for the purpose of manufacturing agricultural instruments. There is therefore nothing wrong with the view which has prevailed with the High Court in this respect. Appeal dismissed. - 1695 of 1968 - - - Dated:- 19-10-1976 - A.N. Ray, C.J. and M.H. Beg and P.N. Shinghal, JJ. [Judgment per : Shinghal J.]. - This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Mysore dated September 4/5, 1967. The High Court was moved by the State of Mysore under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... red, had not borne any excise duty at all. An appeal was preferred to the Collector of Central Excise against the demand, but without success. A revision was taken to the Central Government under the provisions of the Act, but it was also dismissed. That was why the State Government applied to the High Court for quashing the demand and for setting aside the appellate order of the Collector and the revisional order of the Central Government. 2. The Central Government traversed the claim of the State Government on the ground that as the rods and bars, which were held in stock by the State Implements Factory, were "pre-excise stock", and as they were put to further process by forging them into shovels, spades and other agricultural impleme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ustified only if it could be shown that excisable goods (other than salt) were produced or manufactured in Implements Factory of the State Government. It was however admitted in the counter-affidavit of the Senior Superintendent of Central Excise as follows :- "In the case of the petitioner, since the rods and bars held in stock by the Implements Factory were pre-excise stock and since these rods and bars were put to further process by forging the same into shovels, spades and other agricultural implements etc., they become liable to duty and therefore, duty was demanded on such forged articles during the period that is till such quantities of the bars and rods as were in stock with the factory on 24-4-1962 were utilised and converted int ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e High Court erred in not applying Article 131 of the Constitution to the controversy even though the writ petition was barred thereunder as it fell exclusively within the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 131 of the Constitution as a dispute between the Government of India and the State of Mysore. The argument is however futile because there is nothing on the record to show that there was any such dispute between the Central and the State Governments. As the High Court has pointed out, the Union of India was made a party to the writ petition merely because it had dismissed the revision application of the State Government. 8. There is thus no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed with costs. - - TaxTMI - TMIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
