9911796707
TMI Blog1983 (11) TMI 71X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... falls under Tariff Item No. 68 and is exempted vide Notification No. 105/80-C.E., dated 19th June, 1980. It has also been prayed in the alternative that if the said item is regarded as "sagol" or "ashmoh" then it is exempted from the levy of Central Excise under the Tariff Item No. 23(2) by virtue of Notification No. 5/70-C.E., dated 31st January, 1970, or Notification No. 14/79-C.E., dated 27th January, 1979. 2. The petitioners have filed these writ petitions in view of the fact that the Superintendent, Central Excise, Rural I Range, Kota, had issued an order, Annexure 5-Q, dated 21st January, 1983, taking the view that the above items were covered under Tariff Item No. 23 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Item No. 68. It is, thus, contended that when the Central Board of Excise and Customs as well as the Collector (Appeals) have already held that the product is not covered under Tariff Item No. 23 but falls under Item No. 68, there was no further question of taking any different view by the department. It is also contended that the Assistant Collector, though bound by the decision of the Collector (Appeals), but in the present state of circumstances when the trade notice has been issued by the Additional Collector on 1st June, 1983, will not take a different view and will act in accordance with trade notice issued by the Additional Collector. Reliance is placed on Orissa Forest Corporation Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise - 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Central Excises Act. It is, no doubt, true that a trade notice has been issued by the Additional Collector on 1st June, 1983, taking the view that "liment" merits an appropriate classification under Item No. 23(2) of the C.E.T. and not under Item No. 68 of the C.E.T., but this is the view taken by the Additional Collector on the administrative side. I am clearly of the view that the Assistant Collector while deciding the matter as a statutory authority under the provisions of the Central Excise Act is not bound by administrative instructions or trade notice and is free to decide the matter in a judicial manner. The petitioners are entitled to put forth their case before the Assistant Collector that the matter is already decided by the Ce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a recent decision their Lordships of the Supreme Court have taken the same view in Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa - AIR 1983 S.C. 603. In the above case it has been observed as under : "In the instant case against the order of assessment made by the Sales Tax Officer under the Orissa Sales Tax Act the petitioners, assessees, can get adequate redress against the wrongful acts complained of. The petitioners have the right to prefer an appeal before the prescribed authority under sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Act. If the petitioners are dissatisfied with the decision in the appeal, they can prefer further appeal to the Tribunal under sub-section (3) of Section 23, and then ask for a case to be stated upon a question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
