9911796707
TMI Blog1988 (11) TMI 107X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that case Collector of Customs and Central Excise and Another v. Oriental Timber Industries [1985 (3) TMI 62 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] arise before us in this case - 603 of 1985 - - - Dated:- 15-11-1988 - R.S. Pathak CJI and Ranganath Misra, J. [Judgment per : Pathak, C.J.I.]. - This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal on the question whether the appellant is disentitled to the concession granted by Notification No. 80/80-C.E., dated 19th June, 1980 to small scale manufacturers in the matter of Central Excise duty. 2. The appellant is a private limited company. It has its registered office and factory in the State of Gujarat. It is engaged in the business o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st an assessment of the differential duty for those periods. The appellant attempted to show cause, but the Assistant Collector of Excise did not accept the case set up by the appellant and imposed the demand. On appeal the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals) set aside the demand for the period 1 April 1980 to 30 November 1980, but he upheld the demand for the period 1 April 1981 to 30 September 1981. In the further appeal before the Customs, Excise and Gold Control Appellate Tribunal the entire question was whether the appellant had exceeded the limit of Rs. 15 lakhs when effecting clearances during the financial year 1980-81 and was, therefore, not entitled to exemption for the period 1 April 1981 to 30 September 1981. 4. For the fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out that while electric motors were mentioned under Tariff Item 30, power driven pumps were specified under Tariff Item 30-A. It said that consequently the electric motors captively consumed as inputs in the manufacture of power driven pumps could not be excluded when determining the appellant's clearances. The appellant urged that the appellant had mistakenly stated that electric motors had been used for monoblock pumps whereas only rotors and stators which were integral components of monoblock pumps had been used, and that, therefore, the same Tariff Item was attracted, thus entitling the appellants to the concession. The submission was rejected by the Appellate Tribunal. Accordingly, it found that the appellant had exceeded the limit st ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... impressed by this contention. As soon as the manufacture of the goods was completed they must be regarded as goods available for clearance from the factory, and there is nothing to show that when fitted into monoblock pumps they were not removed to another part of the factory for that purpose. The process of manufacture of those goods is distinct, separate and complete in itself and at the end of the manufacturing process, the goods in question represent a completed product. 8. The next submission on behalf of the appellant is that the Classification Lists had been approved earlier and the Excise authority was estopped from taking a different view. Plainly there can be no estoppel against the law. The claim raised before us is a claim ba ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
