9911796707
TMI Blog1981 (4) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ferred to as the Act) and the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) for the manufacture of air-conditioners and parts thereof. The manufacture is carried on at the petitioner's factory situated at 20, N.I.T., Faridabad in the State of Haryana. For the manufacture of Air-conditioners, the petitioner purchases, amongst others, the parts from other indigenous manufacturers, namely, compressors, thermostats and starting relays. Under Item No. 29A of the First Schedule to the Act, Air-conditioners and parts thereof are subject to the levy of excise duty and during the relevant financial years 1966-67 and 1967-68 the rates of excise duty leviable thereon was as under :- "Description of goods Rate of Excise Duty 29A REFRIGERATION AND AIR-CONDITIONING APPLIANCES AND MACHINERY, ALL SORTS, AND PARTS THEREOF - (1) Refrigerators .... (2) Air-conditioners and other air-conditioning appliances, which are ordinarily sold or offered for sale as ready assembled units, including package type air-conditioners and evaporative type of coolers. 30 per cent ad valorem plus Special Excise Duty @ 33 1/3 per cent of Excise Duty. (3) Parts of refrigerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s" shall be substituted; (2) the following proviso shall be added at the end, namely :- "Provided that no manufacturer shall be entitled to claim the exemption under this notification unless he avails of the procedure laid down in Rule 56A of the said Rules in respect of the manufacture of such refrigerators, air-conditioners or refrigerating and air-conditioning appliances or machinery." It will be seen that by the amending notification a proviso was added that no manufacturer shall be entitled to claim the exemption unless he avails of the procedure laid down in Rule 56A. Pursuant to the said amendment dated July 15, 1967, the petitioner by his letter dated July 21, 1967 made an application to the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad, for availing of the procedure laid down in Rule 56A of the Rules. By an order dated August 31, 1967 made by the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Faridabad, the petitioner was permitted to avail the concession under Rule 56A of the Rules in respect of the specified component parts used in the manufacture of air-conditioners falling under Item 29-A of Central Excise Tariff. The components specified are :- "(i) Compressors (ii) The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 56A. He also invited my attention to para 7 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents in which there is an admission by doctrine of non-traverse as the material allegations contained in para 7 in the writ petition have not been specifically denied. In the counter-affidavit, it is further stated that the attention of this Court is invited to the relevant procedure for itself for claiming an exemption in accordance with the said notification. The procedure for claiming the exemption under the notification dated June 2, 1962 has not been detailed in the counter-affidavit nor such a procedure has been brought to my notice even during the hearing of the writ petition. I may do well to state here the procedure prior to July 15, 1967 as stated in the affidavit of petitioner and the procedure under Rule 56A of the Rules :- "Procedure followed prior to July 15, 1967 Procedure under Rule 56A of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 Prior to receipt of duty paid parts petitioner gave notice to Central Excise Authorities (CEA) to enable them to identify the parts and verify the actual quantity thereof and duty paid vide duly paying documents in AR 1. (a) Prior notice has to be g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... concession under Rule 56A of the Rules. Rule 56A requires maintenance of the account in form RG-23. Allegations have been made in the writ petition that the petitioner was maintaining accounts similar to those provided in form RG-23 regarding receipts and issues of materials giving details of quantities received, issued, excise duty paid, AR 1, No., Gate Pass No. and date etc. Allegations have also been made that the petitioner was maintaining an account similar to the one required under Rule 56A(3)(1)(e) i.e. the petitioner was maintaining a similar personal ledger account prior to the date of the notification out of which excise duty payable on finished goods was paid. After notification dated July 15, 1967 came into effect, the same personal ledger account has been maintained with the Excise Authorities to cover up the excise duty payable at the time of clearance of the goods. If the procedure which is akin to the procedure laid down in Rule 56A was already adopted by the petitioner and there were records on the basis of which the exemption could be properly and fairly worked out, then I see no reason or justification why the petitioner has not been allowed to avail the concessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the notification was to file an application under Rule 56A issued by the Bombay Central Excise Collectorate. The permission there was granted from the date of the order. The order passed by the Assistant Collector was challenged by the petitioner there in appeal before the Collector of Central Excise and the grievance of the petitioner was that the permission should have been granted not from the date of the order i.e. September 2, 1968 but from the date of the notification dated April 3, 1965. The appeal ended in dismissal and the petitioner carried further a revision before the Government of India. The Government of India partially allowed the revision application by order dated May 21, 1973 directing that the petitioner there be granted permission under Rule 50A from the date of their application instead of from the date of the order of the Assistant Collector. The petitioner there then filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the validity and the legality of the order and claimed that the exemption should have been granted from April 3, 1965. Pendse, J. held that it as necessary under the notification for the importer to make an applic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
