SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1981 Supreme(Pat) 18

PATNA HIGH COURT
Lalit Mohan Sharma and Brishketu Saran Sinha JJ.
Shri Madhav Mill Private Ltd.
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1092 of 1978 ;
Decided On : JANUARY 20, 1981

The word "cleared" in a notification exempting certain goods from excise duty refers only to excisable goods on which excise duty has been paid.

Headnote:

EXCISE - EXEMPTION - INTERPRETATION OF NOTIFICATION - WHETHER MAIDA EXEMPTED FROM EXCISE DUTY CAN BE INCLUDED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL VALUE OF EXCISABLE GOODS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING EXEMPTION UNDER A NOTIFICATION - WHETHER MAIDA IS STILL AN EXCISABLE GOOD AFTER EXEMPTION FROM DUTY.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a manufacturer of Maida, challenged the interpretation of a notification issued by the Government of India exempting certain goods from excise duty. The petitioner claimed that Maida, which was exempted from duty under a previous notification, could not be included in determining the total value of excisable goods for the purpose of determining exemption under the impugned notification.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the word "cleared" in the notification referred only to excisable goods on which excise duty had been paid. Therefore, Maida, which was exempted from excise duty, could not be included in the computation of the total value of excisable goods for the purpose of determining exemption under the impugned notification.

Issues: 1. Whether Maida exempted from excise duty can be included in computing the total value of excisable goods for the purpose of determining exemption under a notification? 2. Whether Maida is still an excisable good after exemption from duty?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the word "cleared" in the notification to mean only excisable goods on which excise duty had been paid. Therefore, Maida, which was exempted from excise duty, could not be included in the computation of the total value of excisable goods for the purpose of determining exemption under the impugned notification. 2. The Court held that Maida continued to be an excisable good even after it was exempted from excise duty, as it was still specified in the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 as being subject to a duty of excise.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned order.

Judgment

Brishketu Saran Sinha, J.

1. Messrs Shri Madhav Mills Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Mills) are engaged in the manufacture of Maida, which is item no. 1-F of the First Schedule attached to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Excise Act) and bolts, nuts and screws which are item no. 52 of the said Schedule as also certain articles which are included under item no. 68 of the Schedule. The details of the other items excluding those under items 1-F and 68 are given in annexure 4 appended to the writ application.

2. By a notification issued by the Government of India dated 10th August, 1971 item no. 1-F of the First Schedule to the Excise Act, has been exempted from payment of duty under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the rules), copy of which is Annexure 1. Thereafter by a notification dated 18th June, 1977, under Rule 8(1) of the Rules (copy of which is annexure 2) the Government of India exempted goods falling under item 68 of the First Schedule, if to be utilised for home consumption and if the total value of all excisable goods in the preceding financial year docs not exceed Rupees thirty lakhs. The petitioner claims that under the aforesaid notification the total value of Maida manufactured by it in the preceding financial year could not be included in determining the exemption. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise (respondent no. 3), however, asserts that the value of Maida cleared in the previous financial year shall be taken into account for determining the exemption under the aforesaid notification. Hence this application.

3. The Excise Act, under Sec.2(d), defines excisable goods, and Sec.3 is the charging section which provides that there shall be levied and collected in such manner as may be prescribed, duties of excise on all excisable goods other than salt, which are produced or manufactured at the rates set forth in the First Schedule, and it further empowers different tariff values to be fixed for different classes or descriptions of the same article. Sec. 6 authorises the Central Government, by notification from such date as may be specified in it, to have the production or manufacture or any process of production or manufacture of any specified goods included in the First Schedule, licence the production or of salt petre or any specified component parts or ingredients of such goods or of specified containers of such goods in accordance with the terms and conditions granted under this Act. This First Schedule attached to the Act details the items of goods as also the basic and additional rates of duty. It appears that to begin with the First Schedule contained 11 items which has now increased to 68 items. Sec.37 empowers the Central Government to make rules and under Sec.38 such rules have to be laid before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of 30 days which may be comprised in one or two more successive sessions. The Houses have the power to modify or annul the Rules. Under Rule 8(1) the Central Government is authorised from time to time by notification in the official gazette to exempt, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the notification, any excisable goods from the whole or any part of the duty leviable on such goods, The aforesaid two notifications, annexures 1 and 2, have been issued under this provision.

4. Relevant facts leading to this application are that, as already pointed out earlier, by a notification copy of which is annexure I, Maida was exempted from the duty of excise leviable thereon. Thereafter, in 1977, came the notification copy of which is annexure 2, granting exemption under certain conditions to articles manufactured under item no. 68. These items manufactured by the mill are M.S. rivets, castings, machinery parts, job work etc. Item 68 under the Schedule provided at the relevant period the rate of duty as 2% ad valorem. On th












































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top