Home Case Index All Cases Central Excise Central Excise + SC Central Excise - 1995 (4) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
1995 (4) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURTWhether the appellant who exported the concerned excisable goods as ship's stores for consumption on board vessels bound for any foreign ports has to pay on these goods excise duty as per Rule 13 of the Central Excise Rules or whether the appellant's goods are liable to pay excise duty as per Rule 12 of these Rules'? Held that:- It is not possible to agree with the view of the Calcutta High Court that because under Rule 12 the manufacturer earns more profit by selling in local market for home consumption, the exporter under Rule 12 may bear a larger burden of excise duty as compared to the exporter, manufacturer of the same type of goods under Rule 13. Similarly, it is not possible to appreciate the reasoning adopted by the Calcutta High Court in para 28 of the report to the effect that under Rule 13 what is sought to be secured is the proper exportation of goods and not duty to be borne by the exporter. It has to be kept in view that excise duties have nothing to do with the exports as such or with the charging of custom duty on export. They are only concerned with charging and recovery of excise duties which are attached to the manufacture of the goods and their clearance either for home consumption or for export as the case may be. The Calcutta High Court is also in error in taking the view that the words "in the like manner be exported" as found in Rule 13 deal with the procedure for export, as the procedure is already provided in the same rule by making an empress provision that such an export will be made in accordance with the procedure laid down in Chapter IX of these rules. It must therefore be held that when the rule 13 refers to the export to be made in the like manner, it would necessarily mean subject to the same conditions and requirements as laid down by the preceding Rule 12 which refers to the same topic, namely, export of excisable commodities and excise duty payable on them whether the manufacturer of articles has exported them after payment of duty or before payment of duty would make no difference on these aspects. It must therefore be held that the decision of Calcutta High Court cannot be treated to be laying down correct law. On the contrary as seen earlier the decision of the Delhi High Court in Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. v. Superintendent, Central Excise [1980 (11) TMI 49 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI] has correctly interpreted Rules 12 and 13. The Tribunal was therefore right in following the decision of Delhi High Court and coming to its conclusion in that light. In the result these appeals fail and are dismissed
|