Back
1997 Supreme(All) 539
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Om Prakash and P. K. Jain, JJ.
HINDON RUBBERS PVT.LTD. - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 1072 Of 1983
Decided On : 05/15/1997
Rubberised cotton fabric captively consumed by the petitioners, not being 'goods' as contemplated under Section 3 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, was not exigible to duty.
Headnote:
EXCISE - Rubberised cotton fabric - Captive consumption - Not goods - Not exigible to duty - Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (1 of 1944), Sec. 2(d), 3, 11, 11A, 19(1)(b) - Central Excise Rules, 1944 (57 of 1944), R. 9, 49.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, a company engaged in the manufacture of rubber beltings and allied rubber products, challenged the impugned notices issued under Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, seeking to levy duty on rubberised cotton fabric, an intermediary product captively consumed by them, under Section 11A of the Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the rubberised cotton fabric, being an intermediary product captively consumed and not bought or sold as such, could not be termed as 'goods' as contemplated under Section 3 of the Act and was not exigible to duty.
Issues: Whether rubberised cotton fabric captively consumed by the petitioners came within the expression 'goods' within the meaning of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the decisions in Punjab Rubber and Allied Industries and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. and Union of India and Anr. v. Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. to hold that an article must be something which can ordinarily come to the market to be bought and sold to become 'goods'. Since the rubberised cotton fabric was not bought or sold as such, it could not be termed as 'goods'.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and quashed the impugned notices dated 11-3-1983 and 29-4-1983.
( 1 ) LIST has been revised. None appears for the respondent. We have therefore, heard only counsel for the petitioners.
( 2 ) IT is regretfully pointed out that in excise and custom matters involving highest stakes no one is putting in appearance for the respondents and, therefore, most of the cases go unattended on behalf of the respondents.
( 3 ) BY this petition, petitioners seek quashing of the impugned notice dated 11-3-1983 and 29-4-1983 purporting to have been issued under Section 11 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (briefly the Act ).
( 4 ) BY the impugned notices, the petitioners were called upon to show cause as to why duty on rubberised cotton fabric be not levied under Section 11a of the Act.
( 5 ) THE contention of the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 - a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 - is engaged in the manufacture of rubber beltings and allied rubber products, that during the course of manufacturing of rubber beltings, an item called rubberised cotton fabric which is also known as friction cloth in technical parlance, comes into existence and is captively consumed by the company in the manufacture of its and product; that rubberised cotton fabric - an intermediary product - which is used captively, is neither sold nor can be sold in the market by the petitioners and the intermediary product, namely, the rubberised cotton fabric is not goods within the meaning of the Act and hence that is not exigible to excise duty.
( 6 ) IN para 6 of the counter affidavit it is admitted that the rubberised cotton fabric comes into existence in the process of the manufacture of the rubber belting. However, it is averred in the said paragraph that rubberised cotton fabric is a separate identifiable product and that is separately classified under Tariff Item 19 (1) (b ). In para 8 of the Counter affidavit, it is further admitted that rubberised cotton fabric is not sold by the petitioners. It is, however, averred that rubberised cotton fabric is marketable, inasmuch as, nowadays even the wastes are marketable.
"in para 19 of the Counter affidavit it is reiterated that the rubberised cotton fabric is not sold by the petitioners and it is further admitted that the rubberised cotton fabric is being cleared for captive consumption in different tariff items and is being consumed as such. "
( 7 ) THE question for consideration is whether the rubberised cotton fabric captivelly consumed by the petitioners, comes within the expression goods within the meaning of the Act, In Punjab rubber and Allied Industries and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors.- 1983 (12) E. L. T. 54, a learned single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on almost similar fact situation held as follows :
"under Section 2 (d) of the Act, excisable goods have been defined to be goods specified in First schedule as being subject to a duty of excise. It is provided in Section 3 of the Act that excise duty on all excisable goods which are manufactured in India shall be levied at the rates set forth in the First Schedule. According to Item No. 19 of this schedule, cotton fabrics subjected to process mentioned therein are liable to excise duty at the rate of 25 per cent ad valorem. The goods manufactured by the petitioners viz. transmission belting V shaped belts, etc. are liable to excise duty at the rate of 24 per cent ad valorem under Item No. 16 of he First Schedule. It is manifest from a reading of the above statutory provisions contained in the Act, Schedule or rules that excise duty is leviable only on those articles which are goods and which articles ordinarily comes to the market to be bought and sold and are known to the market. Any intermediary product which comes into existence during the process of manufacturing of transmission or V shaped belts etc. has not been expressly and in clear terms made subject to excise duty. This friction cloth which is an intermediary product produced during the process of manufacture of the a
