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

1986 (2) TMI 239

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... actory after 18-6-1980 was liable to Central Excise duty under Item 15-CC of the Central Excise Tariff. Upto 18-6-1980 molasses was classified under Item of the Tariff as there was no separate Tariff Item for classification of this product. Under Notification No. 118/75-C.E., dated 30-4-1975, goods falling under Item No. 68 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, manufactured in a factory and intended for use in the factory in which they were manufactured, or in any other factory of the same manufacturer, were exempted from the whole of duty of excise leviable thereon. The appellants were availing the benefit of this exemption Notification upto 18.6.1980. With effect from 19-6-1980 a new Tariff Item 15-CC was introd .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal in the case of Vazir Sultan Tabacco Company Limited v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad (decided on 25-3-1983 and reported in 1985 (21) E.L.T. 757). 4. Opposing the arguments of Shri Narasimhan, the learned Departmental Representative stated that the case of Kirloskar Brothers (1978 E.L.T. 690) stood on a different footing in as much as the goods in that case enjoyed conditional commission depending on the end use. 5. We have carefully considered the records of the case and the submissions made before us during the hearing. We find that the facts of the cases relied upon by the learned Counsel, were similar to those of the present case before us. In the case of Kirloskar Brot .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing duty-free period. The department filed a petition under Articles 132(1) and 133(1) of the Constitution of India before the Division Bench for a certificate of fitness for leave to appeal to Supreme Court against the aforesaid judgment. By their judgment dated 30-7-1975 (1978-E.L.T. 690) the Division Bench dismissed this petition. Thereafter, the department filed a Special Leave Petition to the Supreme Court, which was dismissed with the following observations, viz., S.L.P. dismissed on merit . 6. The learned Advocate relied on paragraphs 35 and 36 of this Tribunal s decision in the case of Collector of Central Excise, Indore v. Parmali Wallace Limited, Bhopal, [1985-(6)-E.T.R.-41 = 1985 (21) E.L.T. 231 (Tri)]. In paragraph 35 of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... manufacture but was imposed between the time of manufacture and the time of removal, it could not be levied and collected at the time of removal. In taking this view, the Five-Member Bench considered various Judgments cited before them by both sides, including the judgment in Kirloskar Brothers. 8. There is another decision dated 31-12-1984 of this Tribunal which goes in favour of the present appellants. This decision relates to the case of Castrol Limited, Calcutta v. Collector of Central Excise, Patna, reported in 1985-(5)-E.T.R.-427 = 1985 (21) E.L.T. 333 (Tri). This decision was not relied upon by either party in the present appeal. M/s. Castrol Limited were enjoying the exemption under Notification No. 143/71 dated 26-7-1971 in res .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Supreme Court on merits. 10. The learned Departmental Representative has stated that the case of Kirloskar Brothers stands on a different footing as the exemption was conditional. We are unable to distinguish that case from the case before us on this ground as the exemption Notification relating to molasses was also conditional. Prior to 19.6.1980, all molasses were not exempted from duty. The molasses which was intended for use in the factory in which it was manufactured, was exempted from duty. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of the learned Departmental Representative. 11. In the result, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order with consequential relief to the appellants. - - TaxTMI - TMITax .....

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