TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed, having their registered office at Madras, being desirous of setting up a new Industrial Undertaking in Goa for the manufacture of automobile tyres and tubes, on or about 27-4-1971 applied.! to the Government of India, Ministry of Industrial Development for a licence,| under Rule 7 of the Registration and Licensing Industrial Undertakings Rules, 1952. Government of India issued a licence (vide Annexure B ), dated 23-11-1972. Earlier the petitioner had obtained approval of the Ministry of| Industrial Development, Government of India, for collaboration with M/s. Mansfield Tyres and Rubber Co., U.S.A. On or about the 28th of July, 1972, the petitioner applied in Form L-4 for a Central Excise Licence, to the Assistant Collector of Central E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cturer (emphasis supplied) during the preceding financial year for home consumption did not exceed ₹ 4 crores............... . The respondent No. 2 mis-construed the word manufacturer to consider the clearance made by the Madras factory of the petitioners as of the same manufacturer for the purpose of the said notification. The petitioners had not applied for expansion of their industrial undertaking at Madras or for the production or manufacture of a new article included in Schedule Industry specified in the First Schedule of the Act. They had applied for a licence under the Registration and Licensing of Industrial Undertaking Rules, 1952 framed under the Industrial Development and Regulation Act, 1951 for establishment of a new ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very licence under Section 6 shall be granted for such area, if any for such period, subject to such restrictions and conditions, and in such form and containing such particulars as may be prescribed. Rule 174 is framed to regulate Sections 6 and 7 of the said Act. Section 7 specifically provides that any licence issued under Section 6 shall be granted for such area as specified in the licence. The word manufacturer used in rule 174 has to be construed bearing in mind the provisions of Section 6 and 7 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and hence cannot have any other meaning but a person manufacturing goods in a specified area according to the licence issued under Section 7 of the said Act. Whereas the petitioners are holding diffe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nancial year did not exceed ₹ 4 crores. The total clearance for home consumption in respect of the petitoner s factory at Madras exceeded ₹ 4 crores and as such the petitioner cannot claim the advantage of the notification No. 47/72, dated 17-3-1972. It has been rightly held by the Department that the manufacturer at Goa and Madras is the same, that is to say, Madras Rubber Factory Limited. The petitioner is trying to set out a fiction of two industrial undertakings although the petitioner is the owner of both the units at Madras and Goa. Rule 174 relied upon by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the case, and Sections 6 and 7 of the Act have also no bearing to the petitioner s case. These two sections are to be re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gives such an exemption in respect of each of several factories even in cases where all the factories are owned by a single manufacturer. The Notification is in these terms:- GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE INSURANCE) New Delhi, the 17th March, 1972, 27th Phalguna, 1893 Saka Notification CENTRAL EXCISES GSR. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, the Central Government hereby exempts tyres of the description specified in column (1) of the Table hereto annexed and falling under sub-item (1) of item 16 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n respect of tyres for motor vehicles cleared by the manufacturer. It is argued by U.P. Ramani that when there are two separate licences granted by the Excise Authority for the two factories, the exemption, if it is to be properly construed should apply to each factory separately. For this reliance has been placed on Sections 6 and 7 of the Excises and Salt Act and Rule 174 framed thereunder. The argument would have been no doubt acceptable had the exemption clause been worded differently. The exemption, as it appears, does not refer to any licensed premises where tyres are manufactured. Exemption is granted only to the manufacturer taking into consideration that a single manufacturer may have more than one factory under his ownership and c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
