TMI Blog1975 (1) TMI 31X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s varying between 1.7 mm 6.55 mm and width varying between 16.2 mm 311.2 mm and rolled in coils which it supplies to the Indian Tube Company Ltd. at Jamshedpur for making tubes and also to others. This article is subjected to Central Excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter called the Act). The dispute between the respondent and the appellants is that while the former describes the said manufactured product as strip tne appellants classify it as skelp. This difference in classifying the product differently results in fiscal misfortune to the respondent since skelp is subjected to a higher Central Excise duty than strip. 2. It may be stated that during the period from April 24, 1962 to February 28, 1964, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has no jurisdiction to interfere merely because the other interpretation favourable to the subject appeals to the Court as the better one to adopt." On the other hand with equal emphasis Mr. Palkhivala for the respondent submitted that an assessment without the application of an identifiable test is nothing but perverse and arbitrary. He submits that in the present case there was no identifiable test before the taxing authorities by which the product of the respondent could be held to be skelp and not strip subjecting the respondent to a heavier duty. According to the learned counsel there is no difference between skelp and strip, the two items being interchangeable. 4. lt may be noted for our purpose that under Section 3 of the Act Cent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shows that the authority noted the definition of strip as follows: "Hot or cold rolled finished steel product in rectangular cross-section of thickness below 5 mm and of width below 800 mm and supplied in straight length " This definition is substantially in conformity with the one given by the Indian Standards Institution (ISI). The appellate authority held that "since the products have not satisfied the above specifications, they have been correctly classified as "skelp" by the Assistant Collector......." Then comes the order in revision of the Central Government of August 18, 1967. Inter alia it was held that "the product does have bevel edges peculiar to skelp and not found in strips. Under the circumstances, there is no doubt what ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... follows:- "Coiled Strip—A hot or cold rolled flat product, rolled in rectangular cross-section and supplied in coil form. Strip—A hot or cold rolled flat product, rolled in rectangular cross-section of thickness below 5 mm and of width below 600 mm and supplied in straight lengths." The ISl's definition of strip given in 1968 is as follows :- "A hot or cold rolled flat product, rolled in rectangular cross-section of thickness 10 mm and below and supplied with mill, trimmed or sheared edges. (a) Narrow strip—Strip (other than hoop) of width below 600 mm and supplied in straight length or in coil form. (b) Wide strip—Strip of width 600 mm and above and supplied in coil form only. 7. Annexure `J' submitted by the respondent alo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her of the taxing authority or of the tax payer with regard to the tax liability qua skelp as opposed to strip. Since, however, there is no statutory definition of this controversial item different tests have naturally been resorted to by the different authorities and the same variation is discernible even in the affidavits of the appellants submitted before the High Court. 9. The short question, therefore, that arises for consideration is whether in the above background the High Court was right in interfering with the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not for the High Court nor for this Court to come to a conclusion on facts as to whether the product can truly come under the description of skelp. That undoubtedly would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sible in this case in view of the fact that there is no identifiable standard. The best way is to define the product for the purpose of excise duty in appropriate terms demarcating clearly the distinction between the two terms. 10. The absence of any identifiable standard would, therefore, naturally give rise to the scope for arbitrary assessment at the hands of different authorities. Whether this has happened in this case, as complained by the respondent citing the instance of the Hindustan Steel Company, Rourkela, it is not necessary for us to pursue in this appeal. We are, therefore, unable to hold that the High Court has gone wrong in granting the reliefs prayed for. 11. The appellants strenuously empasised upon the test relied upon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
