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

1986 Supreme(Mad) 358

1987 13 ECC 326, 1986 26 ELT 935 Mad
Venkataswami
Hi Life Tapes P. Ltd.
Versus
Collector Of Central Excise & Ors.
Decided On : 27/8/1986
.

Cast iron rolls are covered by Item 25 or 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff and not by Item 68.

Headnote:

CENTRAL EXCISE - CLASSIFICATION - CAST IRON ROLLS - WHETHER COVERED BY ITEM 25 OR 26AA OR ITEM 68 OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE TARIFF - HELD, COVERED BY ITEM 25 OR 26AA.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a manufacturer of cast iron rolls, challenged the classification of its products under Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff, arguing that they should be classified under Item 25 or 26AA. The petitioner also sought a stay on the operation of the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which had upheld the classification under Item 68.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the processes undertaken by the petitioner were incidental and ancillary to the completion of the casting iron in any other shape or size and that for the purpose of converting cast iron into identifiable machine parts certain other processes of manufacturing were still required to be undertaken. Only after completion of further manufacturing process the cast iron rolls can be treated as identifiable machine parts.

Issues: 1. Whether the cast iron rolls manufactured by the petitioner are covered by Item 25 or 26AA or Item 68 of the Central Excise Tariff? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a stay on the operation of the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the cast iron rolls manufactured by the petitioner are covered by Item 25 or 26AA of the Central Excise Tariff. The court relied on the following factors: a. The processes undertaken by the petitioner were incidental and ancillary to the completion of the casting iron in any other shape or size. b. For the purpose of converting cast iron into identifiable machine parts certain other processes of manufacturing were still required to be undertaken. c. Only after completion of further manufacturing process the cast iron rolls can be treated as identifiable machine parts. 2. The court held that the petitioner is entitled to a stay on the operation of the order passed by the Assistant Collector of Central Excise.

Final Decision: The court made the following orders: 1. The Rule is made absolute. 2. Let appropriate writs be issued. 3. The Show Cause Notice dated 10th September, 1981 is set aside. 4. The respondents shall give effect to the order dated 30th April, 1981 of the Appellate Collector, and shall refund the sum of Rs. 92,28,857.03 to the petitioner payable in consequence of the said order dated April 30, 1981 of the Appellate Collector within eight weeks from the date of communication of this order.

ORDER

1. Pursuant to the notice of motion issued in the morning, Mr. T. Somasundaram, learned counsel for the respondents appeared. By consent, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal and disposed of accordingly.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that in the appeal pending before the first respondent against the orders of the second respondent, an application for stay was filed and in spite of reminders, the first respondent had not taken up the said application and passed orders thereon. The learned counsel for the petitioner also brought to my notice the trade notice dated 16.4.1985 issued by the Department of Central Excise which reads as follows :

"It has been represented that coercive action to realise arrears from the Assessee is being taken before the expiry of the statutory period for filing appeal. It is clarified that no steps to recover disputed dues will be taken till one month after expiry of the period of appeal, that is to say, upto four months from the date of the adjudication order".

3. Placing reliance on the above trade notice, the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is entitled to the order of stay pending disposal of his appeal by the Appellate Authority, namely, the first respondent. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the first respondent can be directed to dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and, in the meanwhile, stay of operation of the order of the second respondent can be granted. But the learned counsel for the petitioner wants a further direction to be given to the first respondent to dispose of the appeal itself within a specified time which is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

4. After hearing the learned counsel on both sides, I consider that for the respondent the grievance of the petitioner can be redressed by directing the first respondent to dispose of the stay petition pending on his file. Accordingly the first respondent is directed to dispose of the stay petition filed by the petitioner and pending on his file within three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Meanwhile, the order passed by the second respondent will be kept in abeyance. The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

27. Neither the Assistant Collector to his orders dated 11th July, 1978 and October 6, 1977 or the Government of India in the said show cause notice dated 10th September, 1981 nor the Assistant Collector of Central Excise who affirmed the affidavit in this proceeding mentioned about the processes undertaken by the petitioner by which the said Cast rolls are allegedly converted into identifiable machine parts. The bare allegation is that the said cast rolls were delivered from the factory of the petitioner in finished condition i.e. after machining, grinding and polishing by which the said cast rolls acquired identity as machine parts. As indicated earlier and as found as a fact by the Appellate Collector in the case referred to above that the said processes are undertaken simply to make the castings marketable. The Steel Plants have also corroborated the said fact. There is thus no material whatsoever on record nor any evidence has been adduced in support of the contention that any identifiable machine part is manufactured at the factory of the petitioner.

28. In issuing the impugned notice, the respondents proceeded on assumption of fact. The assumption is that by the said machining and polishing etc. a distinct shape and character is given to the said products. This assumption has no basis. The product acquires the shape as and when it comes out of the mould. The cast rolls when taken out of the mould emerge in the shape, size and form of the roll in which it was cast.

29. Item No. 25 of the First Schedule to the said Act covers, inter alia, iron cast in any shape or size. Similarly Item No. 26AA of the First Schedule to the















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top