TMI Blog1985 (1) TMI 327X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arajan, Advocate for the appellant and upon hearing the arguments of Shri J.M.K.. Sekhar, Senior Departmental Representative for the respondent. The Tribunal makes the following Order : 3 This is an appeal against the order of the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Madras, referred to supra, confirming the order of the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Madras II Division, dated 23-5-1983 in C. No. IV/16/293/82 demanding duty under Rule 196 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, hereinafter referred to as Rules, form the Appellants. 4. The appellants manufacture tractors for which they procure motor vehicle pails and accessories as per procedure prescribed under Chapter X of the Rules. the appellants have obtained L6 licence. In. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r alia that - (1) the construction of Rule 196 read with Rule 173P(3) by the authorities and the interpretation put on the words on receipt are not in accordance with law and accepted principles of interpretation; (2) checking of each and every component at the time of receipt itself is an impossibility, particularly having regard to the magnitude and quantum of receipts and a provision of law or rule which is intended to the benefit of an assessee cannot be construed in such a rigorous and strict way so as to render it totally unworkable and inoperative; (3) when a defect of a part or a component is noticed before it is actually put into use in the tractor production, such rejection at the line stage should be construed to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to find out as to whether it is defective or damaged or unsuitable. To superimpose such an onerous task on a manufacturer as that of appellants would force him to do the impossible and the relevant rules and the words on receipt therein, in my opinion, cannot be put into a straight jacket as it were with such a degree of precision and exactitude so as to cover rejection eao instantal on receipt of goods. If such an interpretation or construction of the relevant rules were to be adopted it would lead to a very anomalous situation rendering the very rule itself unworkable inoperative, nugatory and otiose, for the simple reason that there should indisputably be an interregnum of at least some split second time between the receipt of the good ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e authorities and in particular to Trade Notice Nos. 190/82, dated 23-9-1982 and 84/84, dated 2-6-1984 and the last one makes it abundantly clear that the goods which are taken into account in R.G. 16 after filing the D-3 declaration, if later on were found to be defective or damaged, before they are actually subject to any process, those goods may be permitted to be returned to the original manufacturer within two months from the date of receipt subject to a further extension by the authorities. The learned SDR contended that the aforesaid trade notices will not be applicable as they were not in existence at the relevant time. In my opinion, even though the applicability of the trade notices in respect of the period covered under the prese ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
