9911796707
TMI Blog1982 (5) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... admittedly, excise duty is paid. The said intermediary product has been regarded by the excise authorities as attracting duty under Entry No. 27(a) (ii) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and the Salt Act, 1944. The petitioner contests the levy. It contends that the properzi rods manufactured by it are not 'wire bars, wire rods and castings'. The petitioner's case is that both commercially and technically the properzi rods are not aluminium wire rods which are distinct commercial commodity and so Entry 27 (a)(ii) cannot be invoked by the excise authorites. 3. The Petitioner also contends that the properzi rods manufactured by it can also be regarded as pipes and tubes, other then extruded pipes and tubes mentioned in Entry 27(d). Entry 27(a) and (d) read as under:- (a) (i) In any crude form including ingots, bars, slabs, billets, shots and pellets 50% ad valorem plus Rs. 2000/- per metric tonne. (ii) Wire bars, wire rods and casting, not otherwise specified 50% ad valorem plus Rs. 2000/- per metric tonne. (b) ------- ------- (c) ------- ------- (d) Pipes and tubes other than extruded pipes tubes 50% ad valorem plu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ods under Item 27(a) (ii) of the Central Excise Tariff. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal under section 35 of the aforesaid Act before the Deputy Collector of Central Excise, Chandigarh. The said appeal was dismissed on February 7, 1972. The Deputy Collector held that the product in question attracted levy of excise duty as wire rods within the meaning of Entry 27(a) (ii). Aggrieved by the order of the Deputy Collector, petitioner filed a revision under section 36 of the Act to the Central Government. The Central Government set aside the order of the Deputy Collector and remanded the case back to him. The Appellate Collector, Respondent No. 2, heard the appeal on July 22, 1972, but rejected the same by an order of September 7, 1972. The Appellate Collector held that the production in question was obtained first by a process of casting as cast bars and ultimately comes out in the form of rods having a diameter of 9.5 mm. In his opinion, the generality of the terminology of Entry 27(a)(ii) clearly covered the product which could be described as wire rod. Incidentally, the Appellate Collector took assistance from the definition of the term 'wire rod' in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d March 1, 1970. The Superintendent, Central Excise S.R.P. II, Faridabad, could not give approval of the classification list as filled. This was so because the correct entry under which excise was leviable, according to him, was Item 27(a)(ii) on the basis of the description of the goods given by the petitioner in column 4(a) of the said form. The petitioner had said in column 4 (c) that nil duty was to be paid, but the Superintendent corrected that to read that duty attracted was 25% ad valorem plus 20% of the basic duty as special excise duty. This was done because the Notification No. 46/70, dated March 1, 1970 relied upon by the petitioner to claim exemption from payment of duty had been rescinded by Notification No. 74 of 1970, dated March 26, 1970. The Superintendent asked the petitioner to submit revised Form No. 1 on March 25, 1970, but the same was submitted only on August 18, 1970. Till as late as September 30, 1970 the petitioner had not at any time raised the question of the product being anything else than wire rod. However, as noticed earlier, the petitioner had gone up in appeal, and then filed a revision. On remand the appellate authority again held that duty was at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7 S.C. 597, Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. Another v. Union of India Another, 1979 ELT 608 and the Commissioner of Sales Tax, Madhya Pradesh, Indore v. M/s Jaswant Singh Charan Singh, AIR 1967 S.C. 1454. 12. In Dunlop India Ltd.'s case, the Supreme Court was concerned on the classification of V.P. Latex under Entries in the Indian Tariff Act. It was held that the end use of the articles was absolutely irrelevant in the context of which entry a particular commodity would fall under. It was also observed that meanings given to articles in a fiscal statute must be as people in trade and commerce, conversant with the subject, generally treat and understand them in the usual course. Once, however, an article is classified and put in a distinct entry, the basis of classification is not open to question. The court specifically observed that technical and scientific tests offer guidance only within limits. Once the articles are in circulation and come to be described and known in common parlance then there is no difficulty for statutory classification under particular entry. 13. The decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. Jaswant Singh's case was concerned with deciding under which en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 4 Licence to manufacture Aluminium Wire Rods. It is manufacturing aluminium wire rods. Because of a particular process adopted by it, known as the properzi process the end product is known as a properzi rod. It is a specie belonging to the genus of aluminium wire rods. It may be true that a user or a producer when he wants aluminium wire rods for purposes of manufacture of conductors etc., would specify that he wants properzi rods. That, however, does not change the nature of the product. The entry in question does not specify the quality of the products. It only specifies types of product. Unlike the entry, as in the Gujarat case, where plate glass etc., were specified, here the entry merely reads under the head aluminium wire rods, wire bars and castings, not otherwise specified. The argument that in the trade properzi rods are known as properzi rods and not as aluminium wire rods would have been relevant if the entry in question had divided aluminium wire rods into different kinds of aluminium wire rods. It does not do so. Therefore, there is no force in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. 17. We are fortified in coming to this conclusion from the conduct of th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
