9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nufactured 4,151 Kgs. Sodium Alginate. At the time of manufacturing no duty of excise was liable to be paid since it was exempted from duty by Notification No. 105 of 1980. This was prior to the budget of that year. Thereafter it was changed to Tariff Item 15A(1) and as a result it became liable for excise duty. At the relevant period, viz., when the stocks were cleared, from 7-7-1982 to 10-11-1982, it was subjected to duty under Tariff Item 15A(1) and the respondent has to pay excise duty to the tune of Rs. 1,23,048.81 p. Thereafter two applications were filed by him on 22-6-1983 and 23-6-1983 claiming refund of the said amount on the ground that on the date of manufacture, there was no liability to pay excise duty in view of Notification ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... E.L.T. 1896 = AIR 1984 SC 420. In the result, he quashed the impugned orders. Hence, the Excise Department has preferred this appeal. 3.Shri Ashok Haranahalli, learned Central Government Standing Counsel for the appellant, would submit that whatever might have been the prior position of law, having regard to the pronouncement by the Supreme Court in Wallace Flour Mills Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1989 (44) E.L.T. 598 (S.C.), the matter is no longer res integra, which categorically lays down that the scheme of Excise Act read with relevant Rules particularly Excise Rule 9A reveals that the taxable event is the manufacture and the payment of duty is related to the date of removal of such article from the factory. What is r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of such article from the factory. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and rejected the assessee's contention. Appearing before us in support of the appeal, Mr. Rajiv(4) Dutta, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in several decisions it has been held, and referred us to the said decisions referred to hereinbefore, that the relevant date would be the date of manufacture and in this case the manufacture was complete before the introduction of the budget. It was submitted that until 28th February, 1987, when according to Shri Dutta, the goods had been manufactured, the goods in question were unconditionally exempt from the duty. Under the Finance Bill, 1987-88, the said products were made dutiable at th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ative Society Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise, 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 57). On the basis of Rule 9A of the said Rules, the Central Excise authorities were within the competence to apply the rate prevailing on the date of removal. We are of the opinion that even though the taxable event is the manufacture or the production of an excisable article, the duty can be levied and collected at a later date for administrative convenience." 6.Once the basis of law is altered, certainly it was well open to the very Assistant Collector of Central Excise who issued an order of refund to recall that order since it was for erroneous reasons. Therefore, the technical objection raised by the respondent cannot be prevailed. 7.In the result, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
