9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (10) TMI 64X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts giving rise to filing of the petition are as follows. 2. The petitioners are a composite textile mill and manufacture cotton yarn and cotton fabrics out of cotton yarn manufactured. The petitioners are liable to pay excise duty under the provisions of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, both in respect of the manufacture of cotton yarn as well as cotton fabrics. Rule 96V of Central Excise Rules, 1944 prescribes for a special procedure where a manufacturer, who manufactures cotton yarn falling under Item No. 18E of the First Schedule to the Central Excise Act, uses the whole or part of the yarn manufactured in the manufacture of cotton fabrics in his own factory. The rule requires the manufacturer to make an application to the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by order dated January 12, 1981. The petitioners preferred appeals, but the Collector of Central Excise dismissed the appeals and upheld the order passed by the Assistant Collector. The petitioners thereupon moved this Court in writ jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge by the impugned order dismissed the petition upholding the orders of the excise authorities, and that has given rise to filing of the present appeal. 4. Shri Talyarkhan, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that the excise authorities as well as the learned Judge was in error in holding that the duty was short levied. It is not possible to accept the submission of the learned Counsel. The petitioners had not included the compounded yarn dut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e, because while determining the assessable value of cotton yarn, excise duty payable thereon cannot be included, but surely while determining the assessable value of cotton fabrics the value of the yarn as well as the excise duty paid thereon must be taken into consideration. In our judgment, the view taken by the Excise authorities and the learned Single Judge suffers from no infirmity and the petitioners are not entitled to any relief. 3. Accordingly, appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. The appellants had secured stay of the recovery of the duty from this Court on an undertaking that the duty would be paid along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. The respondents are entitled to recover the duty along with the interest. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
