Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2000 (9) TMI 141

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... by them for manufacture of component; that after the commercial production stabilised, they were sending these jigs and fixtures to sub-contractors for manufacture of off loaded components; that as the impugned goods were manufactured with their own specifications for their own use, these are not marketable and as such are not goods and consequently not dutiable; that impugned goods are not acceptable to the market as they are required only for manufacture of components intended for use in the assembly operations at their own factory; that no evidence has been adduced by the Revenue to show that the impugned goods have been marketed; that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E. v. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises, 1989 (43) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... le to them. He relied upon the decision in the case of Mangalore Chemical Fertilisers Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner, 1991 (55) E.L.T. 437 (S.C.). 3. Finally the ld Advocate submitted that there was no suppression of facts on their part; that they had applied for excise licence in 1987 for manufacture of tools and the Department issued them L 4 licence for the same; that further they had applied for permission under Rule 56B of the Central Excise Rules for removal of semi-finished jigs and fixtures for completion outside the factory premises; that accordingly the knowledge of the Department as regards manufacture of jigs and fixtures is not in doubt; that the Appellants are a reputed Company paying Rs. 10 crores as duty every year and the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ssee has started manufacturing the particular product; that the Appellants neither gave any intimation about the commencement of the manufacture of the impugned goods, nor filed any classification list/price list nor maintained any statutory records; that as the goods were cleared without payment of duty and no intimation about manufacture and clearance has been given, extended period of limitation is invokable for demanding the duty. He finally submitted that the exemption was available to the goods "intended for use in the factory in which they are manufactured"; that the use of the goods is a continuous process and if goods are removed to any premises outside the factory 'in which they are manufactured', the condition of the notification .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gs and fixtures, are cleared by the Appellants to the job worker besides being used by them in their factory and all these facts go to establish the 'marketability' of the goods. A similar question came up for consideration before Calcutta High Court in the case of U.O.I. v. Bata India Ltd., 1993 (68) E.L.T. 756 (Cal.). In that case the Respondents claimed that the Cotton Fabrics processed and utilised by them in the manufacture of footwear at their factory are not excisable goods as the said processed fabrics are not known to the consumer or to the Commercial community or in the market in general and do not come to the market to be bought and sold. The Calcutta High Court did not accept their plea and held that "it is not necessary to attr .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the factory in which they are manufactured' is not a procedural condition as the exemption from the payment of duty is available only on fulfilment of the said condition, the decision in the case of Mangalore Chemical Fertilisers, supra, instead of advancing their case is against them. The condition is of substantive character which is to be observed. When the question is whether a subject falls in the notification, Supreme Court held in the said case that 'it being in nature of exception is to be construed strictly and against the subject.' 8. We also do not agree with the learned Advocate for the Appellants that extended period of limitation is not invokable as they had filed a L4 application for Central Excise Licence for manufactur .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates