TMI Blog1978 (1) TMI 76X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of glass fibre. The following articles are also manufactured by it- (1) Glass fibre boats (2) Glass fibre bath tubs (3) Glass fibre toilet seats (4) Glass fibre was-hbasins and other accessories. The above articles are not charged with any excise duty, which is the common case. 2. Bath tubs are manufactured and supplied by the company with or without side covers to the customers who need them. Bath tubs vary from 41/2 ft. to 6 ft. in length and are uniformly 18" in width. These side covers are manufactured with the length from 41/2 ft. to 6 ft. and 18 inches in width. Bath tub side covers are invariably made to order and/or as side covers to bath tubs and delivered from the factory with the bath tubs or subsequently sold as acc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the present writ petition has been preferred. 4. Mr. G. Vasantha Pai, learned Counsel for the petitioner, argues two points before me. They are - (1) Item 15A of the Excise Tariff cannot cover the side panels manufactured by the petitioner, in which event the levy of duty on the petitioner would be illegal. (2) The order of assessment was made by the Assistant Collector of Customs on 14/20th November, 1973. A subsequent demand notice dated 18th January, 1974 for Rs. 7,647.92 for the side panels manufactured between 6-4-1972 to 31-3-1973, was received. The Appellate Collector by his order confirmed the original order of the Assistant Collector on 24-1-1974. Reckoned from the date of manufacture, the levy made beyond one year is clearly b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, only intended as a cover for the bath tub manufactured by the petitioner, could ever be considered as a `rigid plastic board' as contended by the respondents ? Functionally having regard to the size of the manufactured the mould contained on the board, it is undoubtedly an accessory to the bath tub, as the enclosed leaflet would clearly disclose. But I do not go by the mere functional test. 8. I am also alive to the decisions of the Supreme Court, which lays down that in matters like this the department has got a wide discretion with regard to classification of an item. However, where that classification is perverse, certainly the Court can interfere. It has been so laid down in Collector of Customs, Madras v. K. Gangasetty, AIR 1963 S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
