TMI Blog1979 (8) TMI 89X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s litigation are as follows : - The petitioners are manufacturers of nylon bristles or tufts used for the manufacture of tooth-brushes, shaving-brushes and other industrial brushes as also nylon fishing line. The relevant items fall under Tariff Item No. 18 which reads as follows : - "Rayon and Synthetic Fibres and Yarn Explanation - "Rayon and synthetic fibres and yarn" shall be deemed to include manmade fibres and yarn made out of manmade fibres." 3. The petitioners claim that they had enquired from the Assistant Collector of Central Excise whether the items manufactured by them attract duty under Tariff Item No. 18 and the petitioners were informed by a communication dated June 11,1965 that the articles manufactured by the petition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... racts duty under Tariff Item No. 18 and the sole reliance on the said advice vitiates the entire order. Mr. Desai in support of his contention relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1969, Supreme Court 48 = 1978 (2) E.L.T. (J 345) (S.C.), in the case of Orient Paper Mills Limited v. Union of India. The Supreme Court in paragraph-11 of the judgment has observed that the direction given by the Central Board was not decisive of the matter and it is regrettable that when administrative officers are entrusted with quasi judicial functions, often times they are unable to keep aside administrative considerations while discharging quasi judicial functions. In view of the judgment the sole reliance by the Assistant Collector o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g the tariff advice to claim that the product manufactured by the petitioners is liable to excise duty under Tariff Item No. 18. 7. In the result the petition succeeds. Rule is made absolute and the order passed by the Assistant Collector, Central Excise, Division IV, Bombay holding that the product of the petitioners attracts Tariff Item No. 18 and the petitioners are liable to pay excise duty for the monofilament yarns cleared during the period from March 16,1972 to December 31, 1973 and from January 1,1974 to February 28, 1974 is set aside. It is open for the department to adopt independent proceedings against the petitioners even in respect of the period under challenge for claiming excise duty, provided it is permissible by law and t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
