TMI Blog1992 (2) TMI 242X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g or both of plain containers in relation to Aluminium became excisable with effect from 19-6-1980. The appellants case was that printed Aluminium tubes valued at Rs. 1,25,630.14 having been manufactured by them prior to 18-6-1980 were not chargeable to Central Excise duty even though they were cleared after imposition of duty on lacquered or printed Aluminium tubes on 19-6-1980. The Assistant Collector in his order dated 31-3-1983 confirmed a demand of Rs. 55/277.27 of Printed Aluminium Tubes held in stock by the appellants on 18-6-1980. He also rejected the appellants claim for deduction of duty on the plain aluminium tubes used in the manufacture of the printed Aluminium tubes held in stock on 18-6-1980 on the ground that the Notificat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... manufacturers. He contended that the amendment of the term manufacture in Section 2(f) in relation to Aluminium and the change in the description of Tariff Item 27(f) by the Finance Bill 1980 could not be deemed to have retrospective effect. He argued that the activity of lacquering or printing or both of plain aluminium containers having been brought under the Excise net only with effect from 19-6-1980 all manufactured stocks of printed or lacquered aluminium containers held by the appellants could not be deemed as dutiable. He stated that it was well settled that goods manufactured prior to the introduction of the relevant entry in the Tariff have to be deemed as non-dutiable. In support of his contentions he placed reliance on the Sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... both sides. We find that the short point that arises for consideration in this case is whether Central Excise duty was attracted on lacquered or printed or lacquered and printed aluminium containers manufactured on or prior to 18-6-1980 and cleared thereafter, by virtue of the amendments brought on the Tariff Item 27 of the erstwhile First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 3944 and the definition of the term manufacture in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 by the Finance Bill, 1980-81 dated 18-6-1980. 6. It is seen that the Finance Bill, 1980 provided for the substitution of sub-item (f) of Item No. 27 of the Central Excise Tariff to read as containers, plain lacquered, or printed or lacquered and print ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th the relevant rules framed under the Act particularly Rule 9A of the said rules, reveals that the taxable event is the fact of manufacture or 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." 8. In the case of Vazir Sultan Tobacco Company Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, Hyderabad (supra) on the basis of a catena of judgments the Tribunal had held that goods which are manufactured prior to imposition of the levy itself cannot be subjected to the levy on the basis of the rates applicable on the date of their removal since manufacture and not removal is the tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r effect are the provisions in the law relating to the levy of duties of Customs. While import into or export from India, per se, is the eligible event for the levy of Customs (Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 = Section 20 of the Sea Customs Act, 1878), the assessment or the quantification of the duty payable is in terms of the rate of duty and tariff valuation in force on the date when a bill of entry or a bill of export, as the case may be, is amongst other specified events, filed. Such an event is wholly unrelatable in point of time with the actual import or export (Sections 15 and 16 of Customs Act, 1962 = Sections 37 and 38 of Sea Customs Act, 1878) 1979 (4) E.L.T. (J 241) - M/s. Prakash Cotton Mills v. B. Sen); (c) determination ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the other of the entries in the tariff. It is not a case of manufacture prior to the levy itself..........." 9. As observed by us earlier, the processes of lacquering or printing or both of plain aluminium containers was brought within the scope of the definition of the term manufacture in Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 for the first time on 18-6-1980 by the Finance Bill of 1980. Hence, it has to be held that the printed or lacquered or both printed and lacquered aluminium containers manufactured up to 18-6-1980 by the appellants out of plain duty-paid aluminium containers were not excisable. 10. Since no duty was leviable on the stock of printed and lacquered aluminium containers held in stock by the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
