9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (10) TMI 54X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... case is that it is a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Radhabazar Street, Calcutta. The company manufactures in its factory "Starch" falling under Tariff No. 15C and also gum power falling under Tariff Item 68 (residuary of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred as the 'First Schedule'). 3. The petitioner had the requisite licence and complied with all the provisions of the excise rules and submitted a classification list showing manufactures of the "excisable goods" falling under Tariff Items 15C and 68 of the Schedule as required under Rule 173B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. On 1st March, 1978 a Notification No. 71/78-C.E., dated 1st March, 1978 was issued by the Government of India and by the said notification goods which were termed as "specified goods" were granted exemption of duty up to Rs. 15,00,000 in any financial year provided, inter alia, that during financial years subsequent to the financial year 1978-79 the total clearance of such goods for home consumption during the preceding financial year would not exceed Rs. 15,00,000. The relevant notification has been set out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in accordance with the provisions of the notification. 7. In paragraph 14 of the petitioner, the petitioner states that in accordance with the express provision of the Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19-6-1980 read with the amending Notification No. 50/81-C.E., dated 1-3-1981 the petitioner is entitled to the exemption he mentioned therein since the aggregate value of the clearance of the excisable goods manufactured was Rs. 17,50,000 (below Rs. 20 lakhs). (It may be noted here that the excise authorities accepted the position that the total value of the goods was Rs. 17 1/2 lakhs). The petitioner's grievance is that the authorities did not accept the construction of the said notification holding that the petitioner was eligible for exemption under the said notification instead the authorities declined to give him exemption as he was manufacturing starch which was a "specified goods" would be in any event under the aggregate limit of Rs. 15,00,000. By two letters dated 30-3-1981 Annexure 'C' and 17-11-1981 Annexure 'F', Superintendent Central Excise III and Assistant Collector, Central Excise III made it clear to the petitioner that as the value of total clearances was more th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... only because one is a specified article does not make it non-excisable or can take it out from the general category of 'excisable goods'. According to him both these articles being "excisable" belong to the same genus and the "specified goods" is one of the species for which a kind of different exemption had been notified. I find that in the case of specified goods exemption limit is Rs. 15,00,000 but in the case of excisable goods falling under more than one item number of the first schedule exemption limit is Rs. 20,00,000. It is rather significant that in the case of excisable goods that general exemption of Rs. 20,00,000 has been made. An anomalous position is bound to arise if one manufactures goods which are "specified" and another type of goods which is not specified but all the same excisable as in this case. In my view by mentioning the number of item in case of excisable goods notification meant to exempt all excisable goods up to a limit of Rs. 20,00,000, irrespective of the items that is to say, whatever might be numbers of items in case of excisable goods exemption limit would be Rs. 20,00,000, but in the case of specified goods not mentioning the number of items the n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is own language. Clause (ii) of para 2 of the notification dated 1-3-1981 is independent of Clause (i) of para 2 of the said notification. In clause (i) of para 2 of the said notification if the value of clearance of all excisable goods manufactured by the manufacturer for home consumption exceeds Rs. 20,00,000 in value, the manufacturer loses the benefit. In Clause (ii) of para 2, out of those excisable goods as under the provisions of Act, 1944 certain "excisable goods" have been specified in the notification and relating to those goods for home consumption exemption limit is restricted to Rs. 15,00,000/-, and as the petitioner was manufacturing "specified goods" his limit according to him is restricted to Rs. 15 lakhs. One does dispute that those two clauses are independent. One cannot also dispute with that interpretation that some excisable goods have been taken out and characterised as "specified goods" for the purpose of limit of exemption. But in my view the point is short — whether specified goods are excisable goods. If the relevant provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 with its First Schedule and the notification under consideration are perused, it leaves ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l and effective relief to the aggrieved party, it will not stand in the way of his moving this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution". 13. In another judgment (Associated Pigment Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Calcutta Ors.) reported in 1983 E.L.T. page 876 (Cal.). Justice Chittotosh Mukherjee, inter alia, held on the facts and circumstances of the case "it will have been futile with the petitioner who preferred the revisional application against the appellate order of the Appellate Collector of Central Excise before filing the writ application. The learned Judges who issued these rules have already exercised their discretion to maintain those writ petitions. Therefore, if the petitioner has established its case on merits I cannot throw out the writ application on the above preliminary grounds". So, the preliminary ground raised by Mr. Sanyal that as there was provision for appeal writ application will not lie, loses its force because the reason given by Mukherjee, J. in the case cited above is undisputable and I follow the same. 14. As discussed above, I am quite convinced that on the plain reading of the notification under consideration in the background of othe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
