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

CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND GOLD (CONTROL) APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NEW DELHI
S. Venkatesan, S. Duggal, M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, JJ.
Collector of Central Excise, Kanpur -Appellant
Versus
West Glass Works -Respondent
Order No. 2 of 1984-D, 2 of 1984
Decided On : 04-01-1984

Advocates Appeared:
K.D. Tayal,S.P. Kampani, K.K. Kapur

ORDER

M. Gouri Shankar Murthy, Member (J)

1. Two questions that arise for consideration in this Appeal by the Revenue under Section 35B (2) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) are, if :-

(a) headlight covers made of glass fall within Item 23-A (4) of the First Schedule to the Act or are more appropriately classifiable under Item 68 of the said schedule;

(b) the proceedings initiated by the notice to show cause dated 15-5-81 read with corrigendum dated 22-2-82 demanding duty, under :

(i) Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 for the periods between 1-12-79 and 16-11-80; and

(ii) Section 11A of the said Rules for the periods between 17-11-80 and 30th April, 1981 were barred by limitation.

2. In a connected Appeal No. 921/83, between the same parties identical issues arise, although in consequence of a show cause notice dated 10-4-81 for the period between February, 1980 and 25-11-80. Obviously, the period relevant for the said Appeal (No. 921/83) was already comprehended in the proceedings initiated in terms of the show cause notice issued in this Appeal. Nevertheless, it would appear that both the cases were adjudicated and appeals filed were also disposed of by separate orders although, as it is now rather belatedly, conceded, no amount of duty for identical periods could have been either demanded or confirmed twice over in respect of identical goods manufactured by the self same manufacturer for periods that overlap. The ratio of this decision, in the circumstances of the case, however, will apply equally to the aforesaid Appeal No. 921/83.

3. The facts, in so far material, are :-

(a) the Respondent submitted an application on or about 4-8-79 for the issue of a licence as well as the approval of a classification list annexed to it, in respect of headlight covers made of glass with optical properties for use in motor vehicles and tractors under Item 68 of the First Schedule. It was alleged in the forwarding letter dated 4-8-79 that the Respondent's price list for the aforesaid goods was previously approved in terms of Item No. 23A of the First Schedule as glass and glassware. The Respondent claimed that the said classification and assessment to duty was wrong and prayed for refund of duty wrongly paid on the said basis, (p. 38 of the paper book filed by the Respondent). We are not, however, concerned with refund in the present proceedings;

(b) in response, the Superintendent, Central Excise, Firozabad, by letter dated 13-8-79, inter alia, permitted clearances under item No. 68 of the First Schedule, provisionally, in terms of Rule 9B of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 pending the report of the Chemical Examiner in regard to samples drawn on 7-8-79 [p. 43 of the Paper Book];

(c) on 11-1-80, the Inspector of Central Excise, Ferozabad, informed the Respondent that :-

(i) the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Agra, by his letter dated 9-1-80, had finally decided that headlight covers, specially designed and meant for exclusive use in motor vehicles/motor cycles/scooters/tractors fall under Item 68 of the First Schedule to the Act;

(ii) accordingly, the Respondent was required to submit a revised classification list for approval together with proof of their optical properties and special design of the goods in question for use in motor vehicles [p. 44 of the Paper Book].

(d) on examination the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi had certified on 14-7-80 that Respondent's headlight covers specially designed for use as accessories for motor vehicles, motor cycles and tractors etc. had optical properties, such as light transmission and distribution to meet the requirements of the specifications governing the manufacture of headlights [p. 45 of the Paper Book];

(e) pursuant to another report from the National Physical Laboratory, New Delhi dated 1-9-80 and Tariff Advice No. 25/79. the Asstt. Collector of Central Excise, Agra wrote on 3-2-81 of the Manufacturers' Association (of which the Respondent

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
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