TMI Blog1987 (11) TMI 85X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ral Excise, issued demand notices directing the petitioners to debit in their personal ledger account various sums alleged to have been paid as excess rebate. It is these demand notices which came to be challenged in appeals before the Collector of Central Excise and since the Collector also dismissed the appeals, as already observed, the petitioners have filed the present writ petitions. 3. Shri Phadnis, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended before us that the excise duty is leviable as soon as the goods are manufactured. Levy does not depend upon the clearance of goods. Till goods are cleared the manufacturer is obliged to store the goods in his godown at his own risk. Under the notification calculation of rebate once made was final. There was nothing like provisional assessment or calculation of rebate. Rebate was sanctioned to increase the production. Therefore it was an incentive for producing more sugar and with that object Notification No. 108 of 1978, dated 28th April, 1978 came to be issued. By an interpretative process it was not open to the Administrative Officer implementing the notification, to alter or vary the notified rate in co-relation with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spection, Customs and Central Excise others. He then contended that in any case the petitioners had alternate and efficacious remedy under Section 36 of the Act and, therefore, these writ petitions are not maintainable. According to the learned Counsel in view of the undertakings given by the petitioners, by which they are bound, they are now estopped from arguing otherwise and more so in these writ petitions. In any case this is not a fit case wherein this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in favour of the petitioners. 5. For properly appreciating the controversy raised before us, it will be worthwhile if a reference is made to the relevant portion of the notification. The notification dated 28th of April, 1978, bearing No. 108/78 was issued in exercise of powers conferred by sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. It states that "the Central Government hereby exempts sugar described in column (1) of the Table below and falling under sub-item (1) of Item No. 1 of the first schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is specified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nother angle also. Whenever there is an exemption notification, the duty leviable gets reduced in terms of the exemption notification and to that extent the exemption notification has to be read as forming part and parcel of the statute of the relevant provision, authorising the levy. In Orient Weaving Mills (P) Ltd. and another v. Union of India and others, AIR 1962 SC 98 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court was concerned with the applicability of an exemption notification under the Excise Act to a cooperative society of weavers. It was observed that, "The exemption must, therefore, have reference to the same kind of tax which would otherwise have been leviable but for the exemption. From the notifications set out above, it is manifest that the Government has exempted cotton fabrics produced on powerlooms owned by a cooperative society, and in the present instance owned by the members of the Cooperative Society.... Hence, the Exemption granted is within the terms of the notification aforesaid, which have effect as if enacted as a part of the statute..." (Emphasis supplied). Therefore, if the exemption notification in the case of paper mills is read as part of the statute the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l provisions should be strictly construed, are not relevant for deciding the controversy raised before us. 8. So far as the question as to whether the demand made is barred by limitation, is concerned, this contention is based on the footing that the initial assessment made was final. In this context it cannot be forgotten that as to how the exemption should be granted under the said notification, was explained by the trade notice dated 26th of July, 1978. Initially rebate by virtue of credit in the personal ledger account, was allowed as per the procedure laid down in this trade notice. The trade notice provided the following procedure : "Notification No. 108/78 speaks of exemption from duty of excise leviable thereon. Since the Tariff value fixed for free sale sugar has been varied month to month from first April, 1978, in order to sanction the correct amount of claim the Trade is hereby directed to observe the following instructions in this regard : 1) The quantity of excess production eligible for exemption in terms of Notification No. 108/78 should be segregated and stored separately. 2) Separate accounts in the RGI Register should be maintained so as to enable to whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
