Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S B Majmudar, S P Bharucha
COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE, NEW DELHI, APPELLANT
VERSUS
BHIWANI TEXTILE MILLS, RESPONDENT.
Civil Appeal No. 1086 of 1987 (Appeal from Bhiwani Textile Mills v. CCE, (1989) 44 ELT 696 (CEGAT)), decided on October 3, 1996.
Central Excise - Classification and Demand for Duty - The court upheld the classification aspect based on a previous decision but disallowed the enforcement of the demand for duty due to timing of the proposal.
Fact of the Case:
The appeal covered two aspects: classification and demand for duty. The demand was made after the clearances were already made, and the proposal for modification of classification was mooted after the clearances.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the classification aspect based on a previous decision but disallowed the enforcement of the demand for duty due to the timing of the proposal.
Issues: Classification and demand for duty
Ratio Decidendi: The timing of the proposal for modification of classification influenced the court's decision to disallow the enforcement of the demand for duty.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed to the extent that the appellant succeeded on the aspect of classification, but the enforcement of the demand made by the notice was not allowed.
ORDER
1. This appeal against the order of the Central Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal covers two aspects.
2. The aspect of classification is covered against the respondents, it is fairly stated, by the decision of this Court in CCE v. Rajasthan Spg. and Wvg. Mills Ltd. [1993 Supp (1) SCC 420 (II)] To that extent, the order of the Tribunal must be upheld.
3. The other aspect is of the demand for duty. The demand was made on 17-3-1980. The clearances were made from 26-7-1979 to 24-1-1980. There was no proposal for modification of the classification for this period. It was only on 25-1-1980, that the proposal was mooted. The decision of this Court in Union of India v. Madhumilan Syntex (P) Ltd. ((1988) 3 SCC 348 : 1988 SCC (Tax) 341 : (1988) 35 ELT 349) covers the case against the appellant.
4. The result is that although the appellant succeeds on the aspect of classification, he shall not be able to enforce the demand made by the said notice. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent. There shall be no order as to costs.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
