TMI Blog1994 (3) TMI 190X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rs etc. and possess necessary Central Excise licence/registration for manufacture of these excisable goods. They have installed in their factory highly sophisticated machinery for the manufacture of various types of automatic injection moulds. These moulds were classified under Heading 84.80 of Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. They are used for : (a) Manufacture of plastic moulded parts required for the final products manufactured by the appellants; (b) manufacture and supply of moulds against orders placed by customers; and (c) manufacture of moulds against the orders placed by customers for manufacturing moulded parts for them in the factory of the appellants. It is stated by the appellants that the moulds are manufactured against the orders placed by the customers and the moulds are cleared from the factory to such customers, and the duty is paid on such moulds. It is submitted that there is no dispute in respect of moulds so manufactured and cleared on payment of duty. It is further stated by the appellant that the moulds for plastics are also exempt from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon if moulds manufactured in the factory are intended for use in the f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iming of the benefit and that they are required to pay the duty at the time of such removal. 3. The appellants have contended that the department were aware of the fact that they were indicating in the gate passes about the goods being removed from their own factory for themselves. It is their further plea that although the cost of moulds were recovered by change of ownership, but the fact remained that the moulds were utilised in the place of manufacture in the appellant s factory. They had also urged that the Notification has to be given its plain and natural meaning and nothing should be read into or added in the Notification. 4. However, the ld. Collector has negatived on both the points raised by the appellants and has held that the assessee has not declared in the classification list about the sold, moulds being retained in the factory and, therefore, the quesion of extending the benefit of Notification did not arise. The Collector has held that the question of extending the benefit of Notification No. 220/86-C.E., dt. 2-4-1986 could have been examined only if such a declaration had been made. The ld. Collector has held that the department had proceeded to grant the ben ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the goods having been leased, mortgaged are sold under `buy back scheme , yet the benefit is available to the appellants. He made further argument that amortization cost had already been included in the tools in respect of value of the moulds manufactured by them and, therefore, the duty on the moulds is deemed to have been discharged. He submitted that the Notification only referred to the utilisation of the goods by virtue of the possession and it did not deal about the title of the goods. So long as, there is no clearances and removal of the goods from the factory, the question of discharging duty on the goods does not arise, irrespective of the fact, as to whether there is a sale made to the financial company, for the purposes of raising funds or not. He submitted that in this case there had been simultaneous execution of lease documents, and, that there had been no parting of possession. As there has been no removal or handing over of possession of goods to the financial company, the question of considering the goods having been cleared from factory did not arise, for the purpose of discharging the duty and no liability had been thus created. In this context, he referred to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of levy and recovery of duty is postponed till the date of actual removal. Thus, actual removal and clearance from the factory is the point when the impost and Tax is required to be discharged. Thus, the criteria of consumption of the goods for manufacture of final product, or sale or not used thereafter is therefore wholly irrelevant. The mere fact that a product is not actually sold or is saleable would not make any difference in determining the excisability of that product. This position is stated so in the case of Union Carbide Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. Collector of Central Excise and Others [1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 180)] in paras 8 9, which is reproduced herein below : * * * * * * This position is further strengthened by the ruling rendered by Hon ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Oudh Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Union of India and Others [1982 (10) E.L.T. 937] in paras 5, 23, 24 25 : * * * * * * This is further strengthened by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of In re. Sea Customs Act para 25, which is noted herein below : * * * * * * 8. Thus, it is a settled law, that excise duty is on m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
