TMI Blog1990 (8) TMI 168X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the matter any further so as to conclude whether the step of colouring was incidental or ancillary to the completion of the manufactured product known as Zarda. Therefore, for these reasons, we find no case to upset the decision of the Allahabad High Court and leave the order dismissing the writ petition of the appellant undisturbed. Appeal dismissed. - 1743 of 1974 - - - Dated:- 29-8-1990 - Madan Mohan Punchhi and R.M. Sahai, JJ. [Judgment]. - This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order dated 4-4-1973 of the Allahabad High Court passed in Special Appeal No. 83 of 1986 affirming an order of a learned single Judge passed on 1-10-1965 in Civil Miscellaneous Writ No. 3234 of 1959. 2. The appellant is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the beginning of the process of manufacture and that there was no document to prove that the tobacco was duty-paid. On that basis he imposed a penalty of Rs. 200/- on the appellant declaring the tobacco weighing 14,376 and 264 lbs. as unmanufactured and liable to confiscation. He, however, permitted redemption of the confiscated tobacco on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 200/- in addition to duty due thereon to be paid at the appropriate rate. 4. The appellant filed an appeal before the Collector of Central Excise, Allahabad. The issue focused before him was whether coloured tobacco be treated as manufactured tobacco or unmanufactured tobacco. This proceeded on the footing that if it was manufactured tobacco within Rules 226, 32 a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... terfered with in a writ petition. 6. Besides taking the matter to the High Court, the appellant, it appears, had challenged the appellate order of the Collector of Central Excise in revision before the Central Government. The Government on 26-3-1973 upheld the finding of the Collector. It further took the view that colouring was one of the processes in preparation of chewing tobacco which by itself would not constitute manufacture within the meaning of statute. That order too was addedly challenged in the High Court but with the same result. In reassertion of the challenge, the appeal is before us. 7. Section 2(f) of the Central Excise Act is in the following terms : "`Manufacture' includes any process incidental or ancillary to the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
