CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
S.D. JHA, D.C. Mandal, V.P. Gulati, JJ.
U.P. Laminations -Appellant
Versus
Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur -Respondent
Order No.121 of 88-C, 121 of 1988
Decided On : 08-02-1988
S.D. Jha, Vice-President (J)
1. The main question arising for decision in this appeal by the appellant-manufacturer - a proprietary concern in the small scale sector is whether for judging the eligibility of the appellants to benefit of exemption under notifications 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 and 80/80 dated 9-6-1980 in respect of laminated paper cleared by them during the period 1978-79 to 1981-82 till 28-2-1982 when laminated paper itself was exempt from payment of Central Excise duty under notification 63/82 dated 28-2-1982, the value of clearances of laminated cotton fabrics and laminated man made fabrics (HDPE) the two exempt under notification 100/77 dated 3-6-1977 as amended by notification 192/77 dated 18-6-1977 are includible as excisable goods or not ?
2. Present proceedings arise against the appellants under the following circumstances. The appellants are engaged in laminating cotton fabrics, man made fabrics and paper on job work basis. As already said laminated cotton fabrics and laminated man made fabrics were exempt from Central Excise duty under notification [00/77 dated 3-6-1977 as amended by notification 192/77 dated 18-6-1977. Laminated paper also became exempt from 28-2-1982 under "notification 63/82. Before 28-2-1982 laminated paper falling under T.I. 17(2) was chargeable to Central Excise duty in terms of notification 71/77 dated 18-4-1977 as amended by notification 25/79 dated 1-3-1979. Earlier the appellants had licences in respect of the three items of manufacture but after laminated cotton fabrics and laminated man made fabrics became exempt from duty they held licence only for laminated paper. With respect to laminated paper the appellants claim to avail benefit of exemption under notification 71/78 till 18-6-1980 and notification 80/80 thereafter. Notification 71/78 dated 1-3-1978 granted exemption in respect of first clearances of excisable goods specified in the notification cleared for home consumption upto an aggregate value not exceeding rupees five lakhs cleared on or after the first day of April in any financial year,' by or on behalf of a manufacturer, from one or more factories from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon subject to the conditions set out in the notification. There is no dispute that laminated paper is specified at serial 22 in the Table appended to the notification. The main condition relevant for the purpose of appeal is condition (a) reproduced below :
(a) the exemption contained in this notification shall not be applicable to a manufacturer -
(i) during the financial year 1978-79, if the aggregate value of the specified goods cleared, if any, by him or on his behalf, for home consumption, from one or more factories, during the period commencing on the 1st day of April 1977 and ending on the 28th day of February 1978 had exceeded Rs. 13.75 lakhs; and
(ii) during financial years subsequent to the financial year 1978-79, if such clearances if any of the specified goods during the preceding financial year, had exceeded fifteen lakhs.
Notification 141/79-CE dated 30-3-1979 issued by Central Govt. amended notification 71/78 dated 1-3-1978. It inserted in condition (a), after Clause (ii), the following :-
(iii) who manufactures excisable goods falling under more than one item Number of the said First Schedule and the aggregate value of all excisable goods cleared by him or on his behalf for home consumption from one or more factories, during the preceding financial year, had exceeded rupees twenty lakhs.
It also added an Explanation IV as follows :
Explanation IV. - For the purpose of computing the aggregate value of clearances under this notification, the clearances of any specified goods, which are exempted from the whole of the duty of excise leviable thereon by any other notification issued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of the aforesaid Rules and for the time being in force, shall not be taken into account.
Notification 80/80-CE dated 19-6-1980 superseded notification 71/78.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.