9911796707
TMI Blog1985 (2) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aul Staditz Van Baarn from whom the petitioner-company had purchased the rights. Upto the year 1969 all types of caps were not excisable at all. The petitioner-company had started its manufacturing in the year 1965. However, by the Finance Act of 1969, Item 42 was introduced in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). The said Item 42 reads as follows :- "Pilferproof caps for packages, all sorts, with or without washer or fittings or cork, rubber, polythelene or any other material." In the beginning the rate of duty was 1 paise per cap. It was later on enhanced to 2 paise per cap. On the introduction of the above said Item 42, the petitioner-company, by its letter Annexure-A dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n. 2. Mr. K.S. Nanavati, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, inter alia contended before us that the Collector and the Board had committed errors of law apparent, on the face of the record and, therefore, their decisions were vitiated. The Board in their judgment accepted the legal position that the term 'pilferproof' is not defined and therefore its commercial or mercantile meaning should be adopted. As a matter of fact, these types of caps or covers of bottles saw the market world somewhere in the year 1965 or thereabout and so the term had not acquired any demonstrative noun so that pilferproof cap was noun or nomenclature devised on its connotation. The Board accepts that pilferproof caps are those which are proof agai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e lay consumer, who would buy the medicines, food stuff, etc., which are sold in the market, would also understand that the cap is pilferproof." This part of the approach of the Board is wrong, and that has as further discussion in the paragraph 12 of the Board's judgment shows, clouded the consideration on the part of the Board. The petitioners are manufacturers of such caps to be purchased by manufacturers of pharmaceutical or other products. As a matter of fact it is their approach to these caps that would decide the pilferproof character or otherwise of these caps. A consumer who purchases the container with such caps would start using the contents and he is not required to examine ordinarily whether the cap is such as could be replac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s into this one-sided reasoning concentrated only on a consumer. 3. We, therefore, see no escape from finding that the Board had viewed the problem from a wrong angle. We reiterate that if the caps are such as can be surely removed with a little skill or a little knowledge, then they can never be termed to be 'Pilferproof.' As a matter of fact the Collector should have taken samples of such caps from the petitioner-company of its customers-manufacturers and should have subjected them to the test of the nature we have just indicated. A visual appearance can hardly lend any assistance. We were therefore, very keen to see ourselves, not for arriving at any factual decision but for the purpose of ascertaining, whether the Board had gone wrong ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
