Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1989 (7) TMI 109

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed with man-made fabrics should not be treated as a final classification of the said rubber-sheet and for further direction of disposal of the petitioners' several applications for refund of excess duty realized from them and for cancelling the directions of the respondents as contained in the letter No. C-37 dated 7th January, 1981 issued by the Superintendent of Central Excise and the communication dated 20th of January, 1981 of the Inspector of Central Excise, Range-V, Calcutta-IX Division and all proceedings thereto. It is alleged that of the several products manufactured by the Bengal Waterproof Works Limited, the petitioner No. 1, rubber-sheeting is manufactured of different qualities according to the purpose of the use. There are pla .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t extend to any processing. In view of the said change on definition of cotton fabrics, the petitioners protested against the realization of excise duty on rubberised fabrics but in view of the Notification No. 39/68-Central Excise, dated 1st March, 1968 the petitioners were subjected to payment of Central Excise duties. The petitioners had to pay the same under protest. 3. Stating all these facts in details, the petitioners have come to this Writ Court on the ground that the classification of goods in accordance with any Tariff Item can only be approved in accordance with the procedure laid down in Rule 173 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 by Proper Officer as contemplated therein. The classification of goods can only be approved in acc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... n one material or substance viz. Rubber Chemicals and textiles and classification could not be made having due regard to major constituent being rubber in relation to rubber-sheeting and such major constituent could not be ignored in making the classification. There is further argument that the Notification No. 39/68-Central Excise, dated 1st March, 1968 having been withdrawn by Notification No. 101/79-Central Excise and the Budgetary Note made by the respondent No. 2 proving that in view of the changes in Tariff relating to cotton fabrics in the 1977 Budget, rubberised cotton fabrics as described in the said notification dated 1st March, 1968 were not covered by Item No. 19 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises Salt Act and the pe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... not come under Item No. 16A of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 and the Exemption Notification No. 71 of 1968. The Central Excise Authorities had all along acted strictly in accordance with law and there is no dispute that the sheet manufactured by the petitioner Company is nothing but cotton fabric subjected to waterproofing and rubberisation and the attempts made by the petitioner to bring the said products under Item No. 16A(2) to avail the exemption benefit under Notification No. 71/68 dated 1st April, 1968 as amended by Notification No. 27 of 1973 dated 1-3-1973 have no merit. In fact, the petitioners' products are really man-made fabrics or cotton fabrics subjected to process of rubberisation by spreading r .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... classified under Tariff Item No. 16A(2) and they are entitled to exemption accordingly. Looking to the various aspects of the case and the nature of goods manufactured by the petitioners, this Court is convinced that the products manufactured by the petitioner should be classified under Item No. 19(l)(b) of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act and the dispute raised by the petitioners has no merit. This Court further finds that the steps taken by the respondents are neither contrary to nor inconsistent with provisions of law and the petitioners cannot be permitted to urge that there has been irregular and illegal collection of the excise duties and the petitioners cannot sustain any claim for refund in the manner as alleg .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates