TMI Blog1989 (9) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... evied and collected at a later stage for administrative convenience. The scheme of the said Act read with the relevant rules framed under the Act particularly Rule 9A of the said rules, reveals that the taxable event is the fact of manufacture of production of an excisable article, the payment of duty is related to the date of removal of such article from the factory. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and rejected the assessee's contention. Appeal dismissed. - 3544 of 1989 - - - Dated:- 28-9-1989 - Sabyasachi Mukharji and B.C. Ray, JJ. [Judgment per : Sabyasachi Mukharji, J.]. - This is an appeal under Section 35L of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts, namely, decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. v. Union of India. [1978 (2) E.L.T. 33], Union of India v. Kirloskar Brothers Ltd. [1978 (2) E.L.T. 690], decision of the Bombay High Court in Synthetic Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. v. S.C. Coutinho [1981 (8) E.L.T. 414], decision of the Bombay High Court in New Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India [1981 (8) E.L.T. 920], decision of the Madras High Court in Sundaram Textiles Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Central Excise [1983 (13) E.L.T. 909], decision of the Allahabad High Court in Union of India v. Delhi Cloth General Mills [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 177)]. On the other hand, the revenue contended that the goods forming the pre-budget stocks were very much excisable goods and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... date would be the date of manufacture and in this case the manufacture was completed 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 the rate of 15% ad valorem on or from 1st March, 1987. But the appellant had in their factory, a stock of the said products which were duly manufactured, according to Shri Dutta, packed and ready for sale prior to 28th February, 1987. In those circumstances, the goods in question, according to Shri Dutta, would not be subjected to duty at 15% ad valorem. Having considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
