9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of Tariff Item No. 27 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 regarding liability for excise duty on aluminium circles used in the manufacture of topes. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Tariff Item 27: The petitioners, a partnership firm, purchase duty paid aluminium sheets and process them to manufacture topes. The controversy arises regarding the classification of the circles cut from the aluminium sheets. The petitioners argue that the circles used in the manufacture of topes should not be subject to duty under Tariff Item 27(b) of the Central Excise Tariff. They claim that the circles are not removed from the factory or marketed, thus not falling under the purview of Tariff Item 27(b. 2. Claim for Exemption: The petitioners sought clarification from the Excise Authorities regarding the duty liability on the circles but did not receive a satisfactory response. Consequently, they filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to grant them exemption from following the procedure under Rule 56-A of the Central Excise Rules while manufacturing aluminium topes. 3. Department's Position: The Assistant Collector of Central Excise contended that the aluminium circles manufactured by the petitioners fall under Tariff Item 27(b) and are sold in the market as circles. However, it was acknowledged that the circles are not removed from the factory or sold in the open market but used solely for the further process of manufacturing topes. 4. Judicial Analysis: The Court examined the process of manufacturing topes from aluminium sheets, emphasizing that the circles are an intermediate stage in the production process. The Court rejected the department's argument that the circles are liable for excise duty under Tariff Item 27(b. It referenced a Supreme Court decision highlighting that excise duty is payable on the end product, not on products manufactured at interim stages. The Court concluded that the circles, being part of the process of manufacturing topes, do not attract duty under Tariff Item 27(b. 5. Decision: The Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, granting them the relief sought in the petition. The Court made the rule absolute in terms of the prayer, stating that the petitioners are entitled to exemption from the duty under Tariff Item 27(b. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case. In conclusion, the judgment clarifies the liability for excise duty on aluminium circles used in the manufacture of topes, emphasizing the distinction between intermediate products and the final end product for the purpose of duty assessment under the Central Excise Tariff.
|
