TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 27X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... considered was applicable. Nevertheless, they paid by duty demanded, under protest, and then applied for the refund of what the alleged to be the excess. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise rejected their claims. Appeals to the Collector of Central Excise, and petitions for revision to the Central Government were dismissed. The petitioners seek to have all these orders quashed, and pray for directions to be issued to the Union to refund the amounts over-charged. 2. The only question requiring determination in these cases is whether the petitioners have been charged excise duty at the correct rate for the periods to which the dispute relates. The rates of duty chargeable on soap are specified in item 15 of the First Schedule to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under item 15 of the First Schedule to the Act, on soap 'in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process has been carried on with the aid of power or steam for heating' if the quantity produced by a manufacturer was between 100 to 300 tons in a financial year. At this time, each of the petitioners had begun to produce more than 100 but less than 300 tons. They maintain that they were entitled to the benefit of this notification. 5. Yet another notification was issued on 1st March, 1964. It exempted soap 'in or in relation to the manufacture of which no process has been carried on with the aid of power or of steam for heating and falling under sub-item II of item No. 15 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... To begin with, it is worth observing that if the reason given by the excise authorities was sound, then for the self-same reason the petitioners ought not to have been exempted from the payment of duty prior to 1962 and after 1st March 1964. It was not suggested on their behalf that any mistake had been made in granting the exemption for these periods. And, there appears no reason for supposing that soap stock had not been used by the petitioners for manufacturing their soaps throughout. If the facts were otherwise, one would expect the Assistant Collector or the Collector to say something on the point. 8. But, in any event, I think that the very basis of their orders, and those of the Central Government, is fallacious. In a monograph of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arrant in the words of the notification for injecting into it any wider or deeper consideration of the question whether power or steam have been used in the process of manufacturing the soap. A somewhat similar attempt to introduce extraneous ideas in applying a notification exempting aluminium products from duty under the Act, was castigated by the Supreme Court in an unreported case entitled Aluminium Corporation of India Ltd. v. Union of India and others, decided on 22nd August, 1975 [1978 E.L.T. (J 452)]. The futility of the view canvassed on behalf of the excise authorities is at once apparent when it is remembered that many, if not most, of the other ingredients of soap are also prepared by the use of power or steam: for example alkal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
