9911796707
TMI Blog1973 (3) TMI 59X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ol commonly known as shoddy from the whole of excise duty leviable thereon. The said notification is in the following terms : "In exercise of the powers confered under sub-rule (1) of the Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, as in force in India and as applied to the State of Pondicherry the Central Government hereby exempts woollen yarn spun from wool commonly known as shoddy from the whole of excise duty leviable thereon." 3.Item 18-B of the 1st Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act was amended with effect from 24th of April, 1962. By the said amendment the rates of duty on woollen yarn were enhanced from 10% ad valorem to 15% ad valorem in case of worsted yarn and from 5% ad valorem to 7 and half percent ad valorem in case of others. The Central Government thereafter by a notification dated 24th of April, 1962 issued under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules provided that instead of full exemption from duty, woollen yarn spun from wool, commonly known as shoddy, would be exempt from so much of the excise duty leviable thereon as was in excess of 25 naya paise per kilogram. Thereafter, by a notification dated 27th of July 1963 woollen rags imported from foreign countr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t is classified under Item 18B(2) of the Central Excise Tariff and the duty is realised at a higher rate of 7 and a half percent ad valorem. The petitioner challenges the issuance of the said trade notice dated 21st of May, 1965. The issuance of the said trade notice has been challenged on several grounds. But the main grievance of the petitioner is that restriction has been put by the said Trade Notice on its right to get exemption in respect of shoddy wool by virtue of the said trade notice. The first question that requires consideration in this case is whether the trade notice is valid or not as mentioned hereinbefore several grounds have been mentioned in the petition. There is no authority under any statute or under any rules framed under any statute for the issuance of the said Trade Notice. In the case of Orient Paper Mills Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 345) (S.C.) = AIR 1969 SC 48, the Supreme Court observed that the Collector while hearing an appeal under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 acted quasi-judicially. Therefore, the direction issued to the Central Board of Direct Taxes which was not under Rule 238 could not be binding on him for the purp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct that the gas so generated had carbon dioxide below 99 per cent and did not conform to the specifications of the Indian Standard Institution also would not matter for the gas might be sub-standard provided what was produced was carbon dioxide. The Supreme Court observed that the Act charged duty on manufacture of goods. The word `manufacture' implied a change but every change in the raw material was not manufacture. There must be such a transformation that a new and different article must emerge having a distinctive name, character or use. As the Act did not define goods, the legislature should be taken to have used the word in its ordinary dictionary meaning. The dictionary meaning was to become goods it must come to the market to be bought and sold and was known to the market. 5.Following the ratio of the aforesaid Supreme Court decisions and in view of the absence of any statutory sanction for the issuance of the Trade Notice, I am of the opinion, that the respondents cannot levy duty and make assessments in terms of the trade notice. In making the assessment and in levying duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 the trade notice must be ignored. The assessment und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the said assessment orders are not the subject-matter of challenge in this application under Article 226 of the Constitution. A trader or businessman is liable to be taxed under the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and is entitled to the right of being assessed or proceeded against in accordance with law. Any interference by the executive authority or any attempt of interference by the executive authority with that right will amount to interference with that right of the trader or the businessman. From the stand taken by the respondents it is apparent that the impugned Trade Notice is being enforced against the petitioner. In the aforesaid view the matter in my opinion, it cannot be contended that simply because an appeal is pending the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the trade notice. In so far as the trade notice is being sought to be enforced against the petitioner in the proceedings under Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, it must be held that the trade notice is invalid in law and the respondents have no authority under the law to issue the impugned trade notice. Some arguments were advanced on the question whether by the impugned notification re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
