TMI Blog1975 (8) TMI 45X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndia dated April 20, 1960 under Rule 8(1) of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 whereby a qualified exemption was accorded to certain types of aluminium manufactures in the matter of excise duty. The ultimate statutory revision to the Central Government having been decided against the appellant company it has challenged the correctness of the view based on which the revision petition was dismissed. 2. The facts, fortunately, are few and beyond controversy although the length of the litigation has been considerable and beyond necessity, this being the second time the appellant has had to come to this Court aggrieved by the revisory authority's refusal to grant refund of over-levied excise duty, as claimed by it. Had there been disputes on facts, we would have hesitated to reassess the findings but as the record stands, the sole question is one of construction. 3. If we may anticipate our ultimate conclusion even at the opening stage, this appeal deserves to be allowed as a matter of law but what is more significant for society are three unhappy features which we feel confident, the State will seriously consider. They are (a) that good government involves not only diligent collection ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ue) Notification No. 29/60 Central Excises, dated 1st March, 1960, the following aluminium manufactures, namely, plates, sheets, circles, strips and foils in any form or size in the manufacture of which duty paid aluminium in any form is used, are exempt from so much of the duty leviable thereon as is in excess of Rs. 200.00 per metric tonne." From March 1, 1960 to April 24, 1960 this two tier system of levy at differential rates prevailed, it being noteworthy that the manufacturer of plates, sheets and other finished products had to pay only at an overall rate of Rs. 500/- per metric tonne. Moreover, he was also entitled to a proportionate exemption, in the event of using aluminium in any form already dutied, `from so much of the duty leviable thereon as in excess of Rs. 200.00 per metric tonne'. 6. There was avoidable complication experienced in the enforcement of the two-tier system of duty and on the representation of the concerned composite manufacturers, the Government of India switched over to a single point levy at the ultimate stage of the manufacture and in that behalf issued an exemption notification on the meaning of which the parties have joined issue before us. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ense view, which fits in with fairness and law as expressed in the language of the notification, the resolution of the conflicting contentions becomes easy, since, on the facts, there is no dispute. 8. We will now proceed to a statement of the relevant circumstances which invited the application of the exemption notification. The official materials before us establish beyond doubt - and so no serious difference between the parties is discernible - that from March 1, 1960 to April 24, 1960 aluminium slabs which had suffered duty on semi-finished manufacture was 649.5620 MT. From this quantity of slabs, sheets, strips and circles amounting to 283.2925 MT were manufactured, of which 188.7336 MT were cleared by payment of duty at the rate of Rs. 200/- per MT 1.0490 MT of sheets and strips was eligible to be cleared free of duty being for purposes of electrolysis which was duty-free. By simple arithmetic worked out by the Collector of Central Excise and forwarded to the Central Government (Annexure E), the balance of stock of finished goods manufactured out of duty-paid slabs as on April 25, 1960 was 93.5099 MT. This quantity was actually cleared on payment of duty at the rate of Rs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd reason. True, the order of Government in revision, rejected the refund claim states this as the solitary ground. We quote the relevant portion : "As the wordings of the notification would go to show, the concessional rate of Rs. 200/- per MT applicable only to those aluminium manufacturers, which were made out of duty-paid aluminium in any crude form : this would evidently not cover aluminium manufactures made partly out of duty-paid and partly out of non-duty paid crude. (emphasis, ours) We wonder where the author of this order discovers in the statutory notification the exclusion from exemption altogether manufactures `partly out of duty-paid crude and partly out of non-duty paid crude. If 99 per cent of duty-paid crude' were used for manufacture of sheets etc., should the final product be exigible to tax at Rs. 500/- per MT? Would it not virtually mean that merely because a wee bit of non-duty paid `crude' were mixed the party is penalised by payment of Rs. 800/- per MT? An odd and unreasonable result! Shri Sanghi for the respondent rightly asked whether a manufacturer who used 1 per cent duty-paid and 99 per cent non-duty paid slabs in producing sheets can get way with i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
